* [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? @ 2013-01-05 21:37 William Katsak 2013-01-05 22:25 ` dpreed 2013-01-06 5:31 ` Dave Taht 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: William Katsak @ 2013-01-05 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cerowrt-devel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? 2013-01-05 21:37 [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? William Katsak @ 2013-01-05 22:25 ` dpreed 2013-01-06 15:31 ` William Katsak 2013-01-06 5:31 ` Dave Taht 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: dpreed @ 2013-01-05 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: William Katsak; +Cc: cerowrt-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1955 bytes --] I am using 3.7.1-1, and comparing my simple_qos.sh config with yours, I don't see any QDISC=... line in yours. So is it possible you need that? The egress() interface setup in simple_qos.sh uses that to set the queue discipline. -----Original Message----- From: "William Katsak" <wkatsak@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 4:37pm To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net> Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? 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 [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2414 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? 2013-01-05 22:25 ` dpreed @ 2013-01-06 15:31 ` William Katsak 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: William Katsak @ 2013-01-06 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dpreed; +Cc: cerowrt-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2244 bytes --] I don't think that the QDISC variable was used in the Sugarland version of the script. What do you have for IFACE? Thanks, -Bill On Jan 5, 2013, at 5:25 PM, dpreed@reed.com wrote: > I am using 3.7.1-1, and comparing my simple_qos.sh config with yours, I don't see any QDISC=... line in yours. > So is it possible you need that? The egress() interface setup in simple_qos.sh uses that to set the queue discipline. > > -----Original Message----- > From: "William Katsak" <wkatsak@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 4:37pm > To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net> > Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? > > 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 [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3170 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? 2013-01-05 21:37 [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? William Katsak 2013-01-05 22:25 ` dpreed @ 2013-01-06 5:31 ` Dave Taht 2013-01-06 15:31 ` William Katsak 2013-01-06 21:47 ` Sebastian Moeller 1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Dave Taht @ 2013-01-06 5:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: William Katsak; +Cc: cerowrt-devel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? 2013-01-06 5:31 ` Dave Taht @ 2013-01-06 15:31 ` William Katsak 2013-01-06 21:47 ` Sebastian Moeller 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: William Katsak @ 2013-01-06 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Taht; +Cc: cerowrt-devel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? 2013-01-06 5:31 ` Dave Taht 2013-01-06 15:31 ` William Katsak @ 2013-01-06 21:47 ` Sebastian Moeller 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Moeller @ 2013-01-06 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Taht; +Cc: cerowrt-devel Hi Dave, (and sorry William for being off-topic) On Jan 5, 2013, at 21:31 , Dave Taht wrote: > Netanalyzer's metrics are wrong when used with a fair queuing or codel > based system. I tend t disagree, netalyzr still gives a good estimate of the worst case buffering. I have a hunch that a hierarchical shaper setup should only treat tcp flows to codel and use something less gentle for everything else unless proven to be as well behaved a tcp. Being a layman, I am unsure whether anything except UDP and TCP actually matter. Maybe fq_codels fq machinery could be combined with another drop strategy that drops more aggressively to keep UDP in bound (IIRC DNS used UDP so just rate-policing UDP sounds not like the way forward after all the buffer bloat experiments bought us). Anyone knows which protocols are actually relevant? And would white-listing TCP be preferred over black-listing UDP? (With the usual issues that black-listing tends to be optimistic, white-listing pessimistic about the future). (Or could we just cheat on fq_codel and ramp the dropping faster for flow-buckets (also) containing non-TCP traffic, like increasing count in larger quantities; that will penalize all traffic hashed to that bucket, but might be an acceptable price to pay to keep UDP under tighter control) > 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. Really? I thought that given enough time codel will reign in on any misbehaving flows it just takes "a bit longer" if the assumption of the relevant floe's back off strategy is not matched... > > Use a ping vs a big upload as your test, or the rrul test, after > setting your up/download appropriately. But the problem with this approach is that heavy UDP traffic will still be detrimental to the latency of the router, would it not? Oh, and please do not take me too serious (or serious at all) since I will not be able to implement any of this (lack of fluency in C, and lack of time to implement the TCP UDP separation in tc (plus what would one use to flow-queue UDP?))? best Sebastian > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-01-06 21:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-01-05 21:37 [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? William Katsak 2013-01-05 22:25 ` dpreed 2013-01-06 15:31 ` William Katsak 2013-01-06 5:31 ` Dave Taht 2013-01-06 15:31 ` William Katsak 2013-01-06 21:47 ` Sebastian Moeller
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox