From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa0-x234.google.com (mail-oa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C166021F6A6 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id o6so2358559oag.39 for ; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:01:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=MfQkml1uw3MO2qNrNvPi/+rye+tJaoF6N3MTIDRtQi4=; b=Pq6NTZuw+RBDGzwVpX+fuBzT5c8zvQeYtd0oavKmdleePp7qwBKwnhFWrhZhc6PMj0 2uUwtFaa8CtdKXQgI2vipvV8EYUl0Duo4LFyXulWKlMvBphX2X+aPBUgRDVXxHwgG+UZ 2PZHQOK0zbIBEOPXmGRbBwQlVN6JloHtid2QHNWyQl7j7pPne/WohR3mZqwhSnhhkXtT ExRWRh3NDCVl5aUDJmrPSV1xhLJBGsE8gfJPkQfe8KnzCiKKhs58qxD3iEoWuy65vSOs vDcZGYxg07R1CUeVL34INxfkYRAxxcjllCQ4Saeo8wFAr8sf/07MLmi7HFGR9sHhSMUm KBEQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.200.169 with SMTP id jt9mr19435210obc.0.1407366069716; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.93.69 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.93.69 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:01:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53E28E48.3000601@gmail.com> References: <53E28E48.3000601@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 19:01:09 -0400 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: William Katsak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2cbaaa78c8504fffdf2e3 Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] High speed routing / Ubiquiti 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: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 23:01:11 -0000 --001a11c2cbaaa78c8504fffdf2e3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 If you register as a beta user on the ubnt forum you can see the threads on fq codel. Briefly the lite peaks out at 90mbits, the pro seemed to do much better but htb was inaccurate with the previous 1.5 release and hasn't been tested yet against 1.6. Ipfire makes a pretty good x86 based linux based routing distro: has fq codel. Openwrt also runs on x86 but it is not a huge focus for them. On Aug 6, 2014 1:20 PM, "William Katsak" wrote: > Hello, > > I tried to reply to an earlier thread on this topic, but it didn't seem to > post. I apologize if this double-posts. > > Background: I have a 105/35 cable link and the 3800 with Cero can't keep > up. > > I was considering doing a pfSense box, but it doesn't seem that > Bufferbloat has been much of a consideration yet over there. There is a > version of Codel, but the QoS would have to be set up manually. > > I've Googled this Ubiquiti Edgerouter Lite, and I am intrigued. I don't > see many details on Ubiquiti's site about the QoS though. Is this device as > good at beating bloat as Cero? Would mating one of these with a 3800 (for > Wifi only) be a good bet? > > Thanks, > -Bill > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > --001a11c2cbaaa78c8504fffdf2e3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If you register as a beta user on the ubnt forum you can see= the threads on fq codel. Briefly the lite peaks out at 90mbits, the pro se= emed to do much better but htb was inaccurate with the previous 1.5 release= and hasn't been tested yet against 1.6.

Ipfire makes a pretty good x86 based linux based routing dis= tro: has fq codel.

Openwrt also runs on x86 but it is not a huge focus for them= .

On Aug 6, 2014 1:20 PM, "William Katsak&quo= t; <wkatsak@gmail.com> wrote= :
Hello,

I tried to reply to an earlier thread on this topic, but it didn't seem= to post. I apologize if this double-posts.

Background: I have a 105/35 cable link and the 3800 with Cero can't kee= p up.

I was considering doing a pfSense box, but it doesn't seem that Bufferb= loat has been much of a consideration yet over there. There is a version of= Codel, but the QoS would have to be set up manually.

I've Googled this Ubiquiti Edgerouter Lite, and I am intrigued. I don&#= 39;t see many details on Ubiquiti's site about the QoS though. Is this = device as good at beating bloat as Cero? Would mating one of these with a 3= 800 (for Wifi only) be a good bet?

Thanks,
-Bill
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Ce= rowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
--001a11c2cbaaa78c8504fffdf2e3--