250/250 results

 250/250 unshaped http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/36310277
 250/250 shaped to 240/240 http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/36310700
 250/250 shaped to 300/300 http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/36310832

I think I'll shape to 300/300 for now. This limits how high the initial
download burst can get while allowing the ISP to do the bulk of the AQM.

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:33 AM Benjamin Cronce <bcronce@gmail.com> wrote:

> The contract on my $39.95 150/150 internet has ended and and wife decided
> we're going to the $70 250/250 contractless package. Yay, no more contracts
> for anything for anyone.
>
> The switch over is supposed to happen today, so I decide to do some
> dslreport speedtests
>
> 150/150 shaped to 145/145 http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/36261220
> 150/150 shaped to 240/240 http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/36261354
> 150/150 no shaping http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/36261439
>
> After that second test, I realized it hadn't happened yet. I did notice
> that I'm almost better off with no shaping on my end. The no shaping test
> does show my download shooting way up only to fall down shortly after and
> level off.
>
> These results are better than the last time I tested several years back.
> I'm tempted to shape slightly above my provisioned rate and let my ISP
> handle the AQM, but I have a bit more testing to do. I may attempt some
> alternative shapers+AQM with pfSense. FairQ+Codel I hear works well. Once
> 2.4.4 is release, using fq_Codel will be nice to try.
>
> I hope to show the 25/0250 results later today.
>