From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x22d.google.com (mail-lf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FB2E3CC0E for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:36:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id c126so89227605lfb.2 for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 12:36:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=+1WiB9w8ATUSfEI4UDeH18Oa20U2rxqlmU67Wy8yHSw=; b=zIbUMqQj72Pio+3vI1qUkBx/moss3BRhrUk+tbU/giPVadhfcDRu3dUO+6XTYynWmB xO2k8aXsnsNgQWDaVaN5GzJsEbBc23sVT7ue3ROMFvdwFZ7cYAGXUS/bWaXB6pkj6BKY NQlvJKNyrhNCdVmDhw8YnJe3k+1DVGujSfTLuh0/4Xkb1tO8TGFg4/3zXIR8KXfMMqGA ll+dKfq3eWXoS75PPAxZXJrZ8hhMT1igsbJ4W6FvTErECYEQ8M2gLzj6DWmG0M/YR9fO TUaF0mPLnmKm9e1OPLRpry0APSexx+SMfiaPWONph5WZIjkl4Taz/mOgGzioi+6pupy/ sY6g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=+1WiB9w8ATUSfEI4UDeH18Oa20U2rxqlmU67Wy8yHSw=; b=gliqHSR9lRsml0l7g4i+FU6feGE1x3KW80bBkkBFnbsDfcDWXEahIqRrWn3H7IpoLQ f2/8YhBd1i8f9WVpWKxbW/zJxhxtrdav5+x1+aDjAWjr16akS0Pk2dqsv3yfLszfzPZQ d8nMD8lKlgJ/MN/vAuRcn/Nm1fKCmjKWt7NUNXavOlOzP7vJwm7qqZzywrMnMBwfOWhM mh6tCvdFvVeTUHTfB3M6jHpsOD5Tg5jPNjf5aWqVr1ToR7vzKRbtL706x3/GexgIXnkA f5KBrogrq0b19+e3GmAd6VP+hpGSdlflJv7izqjhI06+6V9sojVwEToMnHyPdIskNRDq NNhg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLrPQHi5m3J6fmU/yGjWpWxbZCI04S3btiu5rA4tfk7G3xASED/aEg+EMWEVDqY+g== X-Received: by 10.25.142.130 with SMTP id q124mr3706794lfd.128.1460144174273; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 12:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bass.home.chromatix.fi (37-33-67-252.bb.dnainternet.fi. [37.33.67.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ub6sm2221451lbb.17.2016.04.08.12.36.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 08 Apr 2016 12:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <56B25E76.3080506@hpe.com> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 22:36:10 +0300 Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <56B25E76.3080506@hpe.com> To: Rick Jones X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) Subject: Re: [Bloat] Difference between codel and fq_codel? X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 19:36:15 -0000 > On 3 Feb, 2016, at 22:09, Rick Jones wrote: >=20 > On 02/03/2016 11:22 AM, John Klimek wrote: >> I'm currently using pfaense which only supports codel and not >> fq_codel. Is there a big difference between them? Is it worth >> looking into using a different router? >=20 > My simplistic understanding is fq_codel creates several/many different = queues, spreading flows across those queues and applying codel on each = queue. There *is* a big difference between fq_codel and plain codel. Simply = put, the =E2=80=9Cfq=E2=80=9D part of fq_codel is capable of mitigating = inter-flow induced latency much more reliably than plain codel can. = Codel in itself manages only intra-flow induced latency. Fq_codel maintains a separate codel instance per queue, so it also does = a better job of applying the correct amount of congestion feedback to = each flow, rather than a blanket amount over all traffic using the link. The difference is particularly marked when you are dealing with = congestion-unresponsive traffic (which codel is inherently poor at = managing), but is measurable and even noticeable even with standard TCP = flows. - Jonathan Morton