Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] Questions about the use of HTB & fq_codel in simple.qos, simplest.qos

[Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2501 bytes --]

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for the response - this is really helpful. As I said in my original note, I'm casting about for usable advice that we can offer to people today. I want it to be unarguably true, and I want to understand the nuances so that I don't get tripped up by Gotcha's. 

I'm currently focussed on OpenWrt, as that's a platform where it's easy to roll out fq_codel in current builds simply by downloading a couple packages. I'll work on a draft note with recommendations for OpenWrt and send it past the list for comments. Thanks again.

Rich


On Apr 9, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
>> On 10 Apr, 2015, at 00:35, Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> - Why do we provide an HTB-based shaper in simple.qos and simplest.qos?
>> - Do the shapers in these sqm-scripts actually limit bandwidth for various kinds of traffic? Might that not leave unused bandwidth?
>> - Or do they just shunt certain packets to higher or lower priority fq_codel tiers/bands/levels (terminology used in Dave's note below)?
>> - And if the latter, how does the "link" (I'm not sure of the proper term) know which of the tiers/bands/levels to dequeue next?
> 
> The short answer is: because cake isn’t out in the real world yet.  We’re working on it.
> 
> HTB and IFB as used in those scripts is a stopgap solution, to take control of the bottleneck queue so that fq_codel can work on it.  Cake includes a shaper which does the job more effectively and more efficiently.
> 
> Ultimately, what we’d like is for fq_codel (or even something as sophisticated as cake) to be implemented in the *actual* bottleneck queues, so that artificially taking control of the bottleneck isn’t necessary.
> 
>> I'll state up front that I'm not entirely clear on the distinction between shapers, qdisc's, IFBs, etc. But I'm groping around for a simple, clear recommendation for what we should tell people to do so they can:
>> 	a) Make their router work very well, with minimal latency
>> 	b) Spend their time more usefully than tweaking QoS/priority settings (for example, by actually playing the game that whose lag you're trying to minimize :-)
> 
> If they’ve got a router with the sqm-scripts installed, use those and follow the directions.  The implementation is a little messy, but it works and it keeps things simple for the user.
> 
> When cake arrives, the implementation will get simpler and more efficient.
> 
> - Jonathan Morton
> 


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 496 bytes --]