Re: [Bloat] curious.....

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
<jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
>> I note that openwrt's qos-scripts still do not do ipv6 properly, and I think
>> cerowrt's aqm system is better in most respects, and it's easy to
>> include on an openwrt system.
>
> Perhaps you should push your system to OpenWRT?

There is still some work going on to streamline the gui. there are
less features in the aqm-scripts for
prioritizing packet types than qos-scripts. I just had to come up with
a way to disable it at high (> 80 mbit) rates on incoming traffic (not
enough cpu in cerowrt), so I'd like it to run faster, maybe using drr
in that case, or something like what free.fr uses...

And there are actually two aqm/packet scheduling shapers in there (a
simple 1 tier and a 3 tier one), and it supports a variety of
aqm/scheduling  algorithms, not just fq_codel, which is there for the
research but will confuse the end users... and I am not happy with
"aqm" at a word, because the packet scheduling part counts for a LOT,
so i'd rename it to sqm or someting like that.

So I'd argue it needs some love. And a solid set of requirements that
it meets before it is as standardized as, say, wondershaper is. And if
it got that standardized, I think it would run a heck of a lot faster
if it got poured into C.

However it is pretty stable and could definitely use more eyeballs,
and it works right with ipv6 and seems better than qos-scripts on most
benchmarks... so I'll ask the openwrt folk if they want it upstream.

In the interim, existing openwrt users can add ceropackages-3.3 into
their feeds.

And incorporate it into their build with

./scripts feeds install aqm-scripts luci-app-aqm



> -- Juliusz



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html