From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [144.76.141.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFE5C21F3AF for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 05:54:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk Received: by alrua-kau.kau.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6E2B5163625; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:53:55 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1408971236; bh=AmVizOGV3elYSxrJ/76pRYFXTmDay5vKc2HDWrgHrZw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ebIH01Gvt1JzywvO3CFYVcVL5r/Oo8WRpvsqTad2n3Fdmoz82mCwwbdpj6+7yHjp5 S3VDSVlR1JU94nvDh6zahcszPXZkEkMnCLBJgHwuIoVepO9B+A0nHvT9RhFC0ePiTT l0A9RTG3phW6itGp4gQ5XlJwLOb56r2b4d8Bd5zk= From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: "Frits Riep" References: <000601cfc061$51474660$f3d5d320$@riepnet.com> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:53:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: <000601cfc061$51474660$f3d5d320$@riepnet.com> (Frits Riep's message of "Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:37:21 -0400") Message-ID: <878umc7mse.fsf@toke.dk> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Status of SQM-Scripts integration into OpenWRT Barrier Breaker? X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:54:04 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Frits Riep" writes: > I may be misunderstanding, but I thought this was a goal. Am I > incorrect, or have the plans changed? Don't think the plans have changed per se. More of a case of needing more testing to be included in Openwrt. There's some discussion of this here: https://github.com/dtaht/ceropackages-3.10/issues/8 Testing is welcome! > =C2=B7 I believe fq-codel is integrated into the latest available versions > of Linux. If so, other than setting upload and download limits, do we > already have buffer control handled with all newer OpenWRT releases? Yes, fq_codel is included in the Linux kernel, and in Openwrt it is even the default. So if your router is actually at the bottleneck (physically), things should pretty much just work (in theory). However, most routers are *not* at the bottleneck; there tends to be a modem of some sort (whether cable, DSL or FIOS) in-between. Which is where software rate-limiting (which is what SQM-scripts do) comes into play. > =C2=B7 If so, do we still need to download and configure the packages, > QOS-Scripts, and Luci-App-Qos? If so, do these packages do anything > besides allow the configuration of Upload and Download limits? Well, the QoS-script packages have some downsides and some upsides. The main upside is configurability, I think. Including things like manually classifying traffic etc. The downside is that it doesn't do IPv6 right, and that SQM-scripts does link layer adaptation right, which I don't think QoS-scripts do. Also, QoS-scripts is more complex and harder to configure (I think). > =C2=B7 If we can, in fact, control bufferbloat with OpenWRT and the latest > Qos-scripts and Luci-App-QOS, then would the integration of SQM into > OpenWRT provide much benefit in controlling bloat? If so, are there > still plans to make that happen. Well, I do believe there would be some merit to having SQM included (at least as an optional package) in openwrt. More testing is the main thing required, I think. And if we aim at completely replacing QoS-scripts, (some of) the configurability needs to be added to SQM. > I am very happy with the configuration of my home router running > CeroWRT on a Netgear WNDR-3800 (running close to the latest build), on > a Verizon FIOS connection at 75 Mbs Down / and 75 Mbs Up, and on > running pings with Speedtest notice a definate difference in latency > (very tight control) vs up to 100 ms latency. Is this with SQM enabled? That usually tops out at around ~50Mbps due to CPU limits... =2DToke --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJT+zHhAAoJEENeEGz1+utPEP8H/jfHsOdxt7KDYZgC3aEv8o9d gaqDCCr4SYa83DSL2FxBGBHM9yicv5qjQqRts9ODH+VrYK3qv6qHLZcGESUCT5Vk YxJDi1HEhcJeI42Jh0gtBBJEGpkgQ98Lnd6q7xvKQ6BIpfpI4gXac1A3I9Ofrthz B2eZD6Fu9OhsCGKiqbisXiVNa3iAH6S287uJ4tJwZ/CRiBRutMy+53+ZdEXQ/fwK 3bPvvQnnz++mzn9t3SvJpJxvKX7AIIpyF0cVNEQ4CqXj4ztcvxOpMcDi5G3GYTqY vJ49NJ1RHIvJiFZgaGGSDJR+GW3PQuW+j3M5H3suXCauxbVGBBTO8pHxK7gB1wY= =9+k8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--