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

[William Katsak <wkatsak@gmail.com>]

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