From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB31221F380 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 06:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from u-089-csam313b.am5.uni-tuebingen.de ([134.2.89.14]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MV5hN-1WpkkU06tJ-00YVLr; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:12:31 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <878umc7mse.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:12:28 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <000601cfc061$51474660$f3d5d320$@riepnet.com> <878umc7mse.fsf@toke.dk> To: =?windows-1252?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:faHLlBSvs5Z/Se0sYaMfaoonq4slbdJOWuVIWGJdnlWOQit3jJ4 jf9skgPa5ndNmq+iLEtiIoX5RY9VIwPBtk2aMiUobMRvFywJPp0fJSczc0bZWtNOMM6c/sN q7U60QSwqnU5lYi7CHCbeaSOAMt5alLML34FPqXY9YCtiIfkv1utxoF45QePqH/kZnhrFUP KtPrvhC09C77BBUh8Q9MQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: Frits Riep , 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 13:12:35 -0000 Hi Toke hi Frits, just a few small things to add to Toke=92s... On Aug 25, 2014, at 14:53 , Toke H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen = wrote: > "Frits Riep" writes: >=20 >> I may be misunderstanding, but I thought this was a goal. Am I >> incorrect, or have the plans changed? >=20 > Don't think the plans have changed per se. More of a case of needing > more testing to be included in Openwrt. >=20 > There's some discussion of this here: >=20 > https://github.com/dtaht/ceropackages-3.10/issues/8 >=20 > Testing is welcome! >=20 >> =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? >=20 > 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. I do not think that all ethernet drivers for OpenWRT capable = devices support byte queue limits (BQL) yet. Devices without BQL = probably also need bandwidth shaping to work well. >=20 >> =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? >=20 > 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. All correct, but note though that the l7-filters (for filtering = on a per application basis) seem to be on the way out, I think that = openwrt CC will not support them anymore. (And there seems to be doubts = about how well the current l7 filtering still works (it seems the filter = rules have not been updated in a long time); and for encrypted traffic = they do not work at all. For these Reasons I think Gargoyle is actively = recommending to avoid l7). > 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. Note SQM=92s link layer adjustments need to be checked for = dual-stack IPv6 and IPv4 traffic on the wan port. (Which I would do = except IPv6 does not work for me=85) > Also, QoS-scripts is more complex and harder to > configure (I think). >=20 >> =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. >=20 > 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. >=20 >> 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. >=20 > Is this with SQM enabled? That usually tops out at around ~50Mbps due = to > CPU limits=85 Curious as well=85 Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > -Toke > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel