[Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland?

[Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland?

[William Katsak]

Hello,

I am experimenting with using Cero/Sugarland on a PPPoE connection, and can't seem to find a config of simple_qos that works well.

The service is DSL, PPPoE, 3M/768K. Without any qos, the router works well, as expected. When I try to use simple_qos, the clients have trouble loading websites (hangs while loading, etc).

Netlyzer shows upstream buffering of about 650ms, consistently. I have tried various higher and lower values for UPLINK and DOWNLINK, but nothing seems to help. Anyway, I think 15-20% below link should be fine.

Here is my config:
UPLINK=550
DOWNLINK=1900
DEV=ifb0
IFACE=ge00
DEPTH=42
TC=/usr/sbin/tc
FLOWS=8000
PERTURB="perturb 0" # Permutation is costly, disable
FLOWS=16000 # 
BQL_MAX=3000 # it is important to factor this into the RED calc

CEIL=$UPLINK
MTU=1492
ADSLL=""
PPOE=yes

Couple of things I am unsure about:
1) Should the IFACE be ge00 or pppoe-ge00?
2) Should the MTU be the pppoe mtu (1492) or the ethernet (1500)

One last thing: I have the lan split up into VLAN interfaces se00.1, se00.100, and se00.200. Everything otherwise works as expected with these, but could the naming be breaking something?

If anyone is willing to share a working configuration it would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Bill Katsak

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland?

[dpreed]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1955 bytes --]


I am using 3.7.1-1, and comparing my simple_qos.sh config with yours, I don't see any QDISC=... line in yours.
So is it possible you need that?  The egress() interface setup in simple_qos.sh uses that to set the queue discipline.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: "William Katsak" <wkatsak@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 4:37pm
To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland?



Hello,

I am experimenting with using Cero/Sugarland on a PPPoE connection, and can't seem to find a config of simple_qos that works well.

The service is DSL, PPPoE, 3M/768K. Without any qos, the router works well, as expected. When I try to use simple_qos, the clients have trouble loading websites (hangs while loading, etc).

Netlyzer shows upstream buffering of about 650ms, consistently. I have tried various higher and lower values for UPLINK and DOWNLINK, but nothing seems to help. Anyway, I think 15-20% below link should be fine.

Here is my config:
UPLINK=550
DOWNLINK=1900
DEV=ifb0
IFACE=ge00
DEPTH=42
TC=/usr/sbin/tc
FLOWS=8000
PERTURB="perturb 0" # Permutation is costly, disable
FLOWS=16000 # 
BQL_MAX=3000 # it is important to factor this into the RED calc

CEIL=$UPLINK
MTU=1492
ADSLL=""
PPOE=yes

Couple of things I am unsure about:
1) Should the IFACE be ge00 or pppoe-ge00?
2) Should the MTU be the pppoe mtu (1492) or the ethernet (1500)

One last thing: I have the lan split up into VLAN interfaces se00.1, se00.100, and se00.200. Everything otherwise works as expected with these, but could the naming be breaking something?

If anyone is willing to share a working configuration it would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Bill Katsak

_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2414 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland?

[Dave Taht]

Netanalyzer's metrics are wrong when used with a fair queuing or codel
based system. They use a single udp flood to measure the "queue" when
in the "fq" portion of fq_codel there are 1024 by default, and when
codel kicks in, queue depth is reduced eventually to a level that tcp
would expect, but has no effect on a single udp flood.

Use a ping vs a big upload as your test, or the rrul test, after
setting your up/download appropriately.



On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:37 PM, William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am experimenting with using Cero/Sugarland on a PPPoE connection, and can't seem to find a config of simple_qos that works well.
>
> The service is DSL, PPPoE, 3M/768K. Without any qos, the router works well, as expected. When I try to use simple_qos, the clients have trouble loading websites (hangs while loading, etc).
>
> Netlyzer shows upstream buffering of about 650ms, consistently. I have tried various higher and lower values for UPLINK and DOWNLINK, but nothing seems to help. Anyway, I think 15-20% below link should be fine.
>
> Here is my config:
> UPLINK=550
> DOWNLINK=1900
> DEV=ifb0
> IFACE=ge00
> DEPTH=42
> TC=/usr/sbin/tc
> FLOWS=8000
> PERTURB="perturb 0" # Permutation is costly, disable
> FLOWS=16000 #
> BQL_MAX=3000 # it is important to factor this into the RED calc
>
> CEIL=$UPLINK
> MTU=1492
> ADSLL=""
> PPOE=yes
>
> Couple of things I am unsure about:
> 1) Should the IFACE be ge00 or pppoe-ge00?
> 2) Should the MTU be the pppoe mtu (1492) or the ethernet (1500)
>
> One last thing: I have the lan split up into VLAN interfaces se00.1, se00.100, and se00.200. Everything otherwise works as expected with these, but could the naming be breaking something?
>
> If anyone is willing to share a working configuration it would be much appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Katsak
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel



-- 
Dave Täht

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

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland?

[William Katsak]

Thanks.

I figured something was broken with Netalyzer, but it still doesn't explain why I can't browse a lot of websites when I kick in the simple_qos. It is almost like the MTUs are mismatched someplace and causing drops…it is stumping me.

-Bill



On Jan 6, 2013, at 12:31 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> Netanalyzer's metrics are wrong when used with a fair queuing or codel
> based system. They use a single udp flood to measure the "queue" when
> in the "fq" portion of fq_codel there are 1024 by default, and when
> codel kicks in, queue depth is reduced eventually to a level that tcp
> would expect, but has no effect on a single udp flood.
> 
> Use a ping vs a big upload as your test, or the rrul test, after
> setting your up/download appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:37 PM, William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I am experimenting with using Cero/Sugarland on a PPPoE connection, and can't seem to find a config of simple_qos that works well.
>> 
>> The service is DSL, PPPoE, 3M/768K. Without any qos, the router works well, as expected. When I try to use simple_qos, the clients have trouble loading websites (hangs while loading, etc).
>> 
>> Netlyzer shows upstream buffering of about 650ms, consistently. I have tried various higher and lower values for UPLINK and DOWNLINK, but nothing seems to help. Anyway, I think 15-20% below link should be fine.
>> 
>> Here is my config:
>> UPLINK=550
>> DOWNLINK=1900
>> DEV=ifb0
>> IFACE=ge00
>> DEPTH=42
>> TC=/usr/sbin/tc
>> FLOWS=8000
>> PERTURB="perturb 0" # Permutation is costly, disable
>> FLOWS=16000 #
>> BQL_MAX=3000 # it is important to factor this into the RED calc
>> 
>> CEIL=$UPLINK
>> MTU=1492
>> ADSLL=""
>> PPOE=yes
>> 
>> Couple of things I am unsure about:
>> 1) Should the IFACE be ge00 or pppoe-ge00?
>> 2) Should the MTU be the pppoe mtu (1492) or the ethernet (1500)
>> 
>> One last thing: I have the lan split up into VLAN interfaces se00.1, se00.100, and se00.200. Everything otherwise works as expected with these, but could the naming be breaking something?
>> 
>> If anyone is willing to share a working configuration it would be much appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Bill Katsak
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Täht
> 
> Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland?

[William Katsak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2244 bytes --]

I don't think that the QDISC variable was used in the Sugarland version of the script.

What do you have for IFACE?

Thanks,
-Bill

On Jan 5, 2013, at 5:25 PM, dpreed@reed.com wrote:

> I am using 3.7.1-1, and comparing my simple_qos.sh config with yours, I don't see any QDISC=... line in yours.
> So is it possible you need that?  The egress() interface setup in simple_qos.sh uses that to set the queue discipline.
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "William Katsak" <wkatsak@gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 4:37pm
> To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am experimenting with using Cero/Sugarland on a PPPoE connection, and can't seem to find a config of simple_qos that works well.
> 
> The service is DSL, PPPoE, 3M/768K. Without any qos, the router works well, as expected. When I try to use simple_qos, the clients have trouble loading websites (hangs while loading, etc).
> 
> Netlyzer shows upstream buffering of about 650ms, consistently. I have tried various higher and lower values for UPLINK and DOWNLINK, but nothing seems to help. Anyway, I think 15-20% below link should be fine.
> 
> Here is my config:
> UPLINK=550
> DOWNLINK=1900
> DEV=ifb0
> IFACE=ge00
> DEPTH=42
> TC=/usr/sbin/tc
> FLOWS=8000
> PERTURB="perturb 0" # Permutation is costly, disable
> FLOWS=16000 # 
> BQL_MAX=3000 # it is important to factor this into the RED calc
> 
> CEIL=$UPLINK
> MTU=1492
> ADSLL=""
> PPOE=yes
> 
> Couple of things I am unsure about:
> 1) Should the IFACE be ge00 or pppoe-ge00?
> 2) Should the MTU be the pppoe mtu (1492) or the ethernet (1500)
> 
> One last thing: I have the lan split up into VLAN interfaces se00.1, se00.100, and se00.200. Everything otherwise works as expected with these, but could the naming be breaking something?
> 
> If anyone is willing to share a working configuration it would be much appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bill Katsak
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3170 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland?

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dave,

(and sorry William for being off-topic)

On Jan 5, 2013, at 21:31 , Dave Taht wrote:

> Netanalyzer's metrics are wrong when used with a fair queuing or codel
> based system.

	I tend t disagree, netalyzr still gives a good estimate of the worst case buffering. I have a hunch that a hierarchical shaper setup should only treat tcp flows to codel and use something less gentle for everything else unless proven to be as well behaved a tcp. Being a layman, I am unsure whether anything except UDP and TCP actually matter. Maybe fq_codels fq machinery could be combined with another drop strategy that drops more aggressively to keep UDP in bound (IIRC DNS used UDP so just rate-policing UDP sounds not like the way forward after all the buffer bloat experiments bought us). Anyone knows which protocols are actually relevant? And would white-listing TCP be preferred over black-listing UDP? (With the usual issues that black-listing tends to be optimistic, white-listing pessimistic about the future). (Or could we just cheat on fq_codel and ramp the dropping faster for flow-buckets (also) containing non-TCP traffic, like increasing count in larger quantities; that will penalize all traffic hashed to that bucket, but might be an acceptable price to pay to keep UDP under tighter control)

> They use a single udp flood to measure the "queue" when
> in the "fq" portion of fq_codel there are 1024 by default, and when
> codel kicks in, queue depth is reduced eventually to a level that tcp
> would expect, but has no effect on a single udp flood.

	Really? I thought that given enough time codel will reign in on any misbehaving flows it just takes "a bit longer" if the assumption of the relevant floe's back off strategy is not matched...

> 
> Use a ping vs a big upload as your test, or the rrul test, after
> setting your up/download appropriately.

	But the problem with this approach is that heavy UDP traffic will still be detrimental to the latency of the router, would it not?  Oh, and please do not take me too serious (or serious at all) since I will not be able to implement any of this (lack of fluency in C, and lack of time to implement the TCP UDP separation in tc (plus what would one use to flow-queue UDP?))?


best
	Sebastian

> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:37 PM, William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I am experimenting with using Cero/Sugarland on a PPPoE connection, and can't seem to find a config of simple_qos that works well.
>> 
>> The service is DSL, PPPoE, 3M/768K. Without any qos, the router works well, as expected. When I try to use simple_qos, the clients have trouble loading websites (hangs while loading, etc).
>> 
>> Netlyzer shows upstream buffering of about 650ms, consistently. I have tried various higher and lower values for UPLINK and DOWNLINK, but nothing seems to help. Anyway, I think 15-20% below link should be fine.
>> 
>> Here is my config:
>> UPLINK=550
>> DOWNLINK=1900
>> DEV=ifb0
>> IFACE=ge00
>> DEPTH=42
>> TC=/usr/sbin/tc
>> FLOWS=8000
>> PERTURB="perturb 0" # Permutation is costly, disable
>> FLOWS=16000 #
>> BQL_MAX=3000 # it is important to factor this into the RED calc
>> 
>> CEIL=$UPLINK
>> MTU=1492
>> ADSLL=""
>> PPOE=yes
>> 
>> Couple of things I am unsure about:
>> 1) Should the IFACE be ge00 or pppoe-ge00?
>> 2) Should the MTU be the pppoe mtu (1492) or the ethernet (1500)
>> 
>> One last thing: I have the lan split up into VLAN interfaces se00.1, se00.100, and se00.200. Everything otherwise works as expected with these, but could the naming be breaking something?
>> 
>> If anyone is willing to share a working configuration it would be much appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Bill Katsak
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Täht
> 
> Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel