Traffic Shaper Stuff



  • Not exactly top priority, but I thought I would mention a couple of things about the traffic shaper.  The old folder, page & node icons used by the traffic shaper hierarchy view are ugly, unaliased yuck that make me think of Windows 3.1.  I've always hated that folders/pages visual representation and wish it would change, but if it must be folders/pages then perhaps nicer-looking icons would make it look less primitive.  The nesting is fine but the folders/pages analogy always felt awkward to me.

    Also, the Status page is about as basic as can be.  User jvorhees came up with a nice-looking status page for 2.0.x that shows you literally everything in a single view.  I really wish some of this would have been incorporated into 2.3:

    https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=58245.0



  • Administrator

    @KOM:

    Not exactly top priority, but I thought I would mention a couple of things about the traffic shaper.  The old folder, page & node icons used by the traffic shaper hierarchy view are ugly, unaliased yuck that make me think of Windows 3.1.  I've always hated that folders/pages visual representation and wish it would change, but if it must be folders/pages then perhaps nicer-looking icons would make it look less primitive.  The nesting is fine but the folders/pages analogy always felt awkward to me.

    Yea that could use some work. I'm not familiar with the traffic shaper enough to know what that tree visually represents and how best to represent it. Are icons even necessary? Maybe just bold the "folders" instead?

    I also broke the coloring in the light theme…working on fixing that.


  • Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate

    It's mostly there to show the parent/child relationship and hierarchy of the queues.  I suspect the folder display was chosen because at the time it was a common visualization in things like Windows explorer for such relationships.

    As long as each level is visually nested under its parent level, the icons and layout are all debatable



  • It's literally just two parent queues and child queues underneath.  The queues hold network packets so it can prioritize them.  Perhaps a down arrow for WAN, an up arrow for LAN and side arrows for the children?  Perhaps no icon required at all, as you said?


  • Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate

    That may be what you get with the wizard but you can have much more complicated relationships with HFSC and CBQ, with multiple levels of nested queues. It really is more of a tree type hierarchy that can go much deeper.

    Plus there are numerous different interface names possible, coding in special handling for WAN and LAN is a bad idea.



  • Plus there are numerous different interface names possible, coding in special handling for WAN and LAN is a bad idea.

    I don't know what you mean here.  I don't see anything about special handling of anything based on NIC name.


  • Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate

    @KOM:

    I don't know what you mean here.  I don't see anything about special handling of anything based on NIC name.

    This:
    @KOM:

    Perhaps a down arrow for WAN, an up arrow for LAN and side arrows for the children?



  • I'm still not getting it.  You're saying it's too hard to determine which is WAN and LAN, and put the appropriate arrow icon beside it?


  • Administrator

    Yea. That tree script is probably best left being agnostic considering the way it is currently being used. It would be too much work for what I feel would be little return in this case.



  • Ok, got it.  Thanks for the input.


Log in to reply