From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) (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 85AB021F2AE for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obfe9 with SMTP id e9so157526427obf.1 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:29:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7406h8BDxX9qlpGpvIH3na8rTn/wFB1Rk/NnveBovFo=; b=d+tJ6jzCBH07zqJQUI/fwsTPEjH89qz1Dox/icGh4WA1FeAMnWtggKAoRVEFwbcGv2 kL3qnFysmcJaWL8KCe1g3aG2dnjLbNNsKLSg75FhpTaa3WRsdc1DnsLhXQptBDHktzCO qOfzlvmzHxFYSigpwpt2hg3TpXdDSSCQ9hZIarkClM2LfgJcZYhbL66dQz3a4X/40b2T OOCoPIxEu/3SWQNOVnUexXwuzBspKZgKK2Vdpn8+Amoib94nVzn8K8IYCDhLyiuDehCG PWYjA7k7P9yumOOJYHXq4jj8DNYiegBsScdVQzbuGr7Uq0aaMyIhH+CitE3VPXlYv5i+ 5trQ== X-Received: by 10.60.40.195 with SMTP id z3mr21450758oek.85.1429662552362; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:29:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: white.phoenix@gmail.com Received: by 10.202.188.130 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:28:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <558D3A0C-75A0-4707-95DF-790F29F825AE@gmx.de> From: leetminiwheat Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:28:42 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FPTljdVC2sRPaJreAMEj642eL98 Message-ID: To: Sebastian Moeller Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] squash/ignore DSCP and mangle table questions 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, 22 Apr 2015 00:29:41 -0000 Correcton on P.S. section: 3 and 5t not 4 and 5t. also regarding my tc qdisc output: i clearly need to reboot or something to fix the duplicate IFBs after testing a bunch of QoS. I currently have to hand-mix the latest ones with Cero since I don't have an updated luci-sqm On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:19 PM, leetminiwheat wr= ote: > Sorry this is getting a bit off-topic here. > >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Sebastian Moeller wro= te: >> >>> On Apr 15, 2015, at 03:35 , leetminiwheat wro= te: >> >>> I assume tweaking ring parameters from default RX:128 and TX:32 >>> doesn't matter anymore thenr? >> >> As far as I know we leave that alone, see: http://www.bufferbloa= t.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Linux_Tips: >> =E2=80=9CSet the size of the ring buffer for the network interface >> >> NOTE: THIS HACK IS NO LONGER NEEDED on many ethernet drivers in Linux 3.= 3, which has Byte Queue Limits instead, which does a far better job." >> > I noticed Dave mentioned on a mailing list that changing tx ring still > does have some benefit, and his notes in debloat script suggest BQL > doesn't always work as implied. >> >>> >>>> [...] >>>> If you have time and netperf-wrapper it would be good to convince your= self and us again, that txqueuelen really does not matter for BQL=E2=80=99d= interfaces by running RRUL tests with and without your modifications=E2=80= =A6. > > Thanks, after extensive RRUL testing.... I've come to the same > conclusion Dave did, that changing tx perameters just isn't worth it > and causes instability. I noticed on 120s tests my WAN connection > would reset with ath9k: pll_reg and latencies would skyrocket > thereafter. I don't quite have a producible error, but it seemed like > associating/diassociating wireless clients might be related to it > (with Revert "debloat: stop changing wifi qlen") but I was also > changing txring on ethernet for testing at 4, 8, 16, etc. > > Also, I tested some custom HFSC+fq_codel qos scripts here: > https://github.com/zcecc22/qos-nxt > He defaults to 90% (meaning you have to adjust your b/w limits), and > the 2-bin codel doesn't seem to work very well. Seemed like an > interesting compromise between simple and simplest, but the results > were pretty terrible. I'd like to test CAKE more, but it seems > 3.10.50-1 doesn't have the required kernel support. > > Recent changes in barrier breaker to txring seem pretty dumb, they > default to 256 txring now I believe, ticket here was closed with > "worksforme" https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/13072 so I'm reluctant to > upgrade, plus I don't fully understand the extent of which Dave's > kernel hacks impact things. Closer inspection/comparison/diffs are > needed if I'm to upgrade and integrate Cero's tweaks. > > Oddly enough, simplest.qos on WAN gives me better throughput/latency > at times (likely due to less overhead), but other times simple.qos is > doing what it should and giving more throughput and lower latency to > higher priority traffic. I seem to get better RRUL tests with LIMIT=3D > blank, and ILIMIT/ELIMIT set to auto which results in this: > > qdisc fq_codel a: dev se00 root refcnt 2 limit 1514p flows 1024 > quantum 1514 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn > qdisc htb 1: dev ge00 root refcnt 2 r2q 10 default 12 > direct_packets_stat 0 direct_qlen 1000 > qdisc fq_codel 110: dev ge00 parent 1:11 limit 1024p flows 1024 > quantum 300 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn > qdisc fq_codel 120: dev ge00 parent 1:12 limit 1024p flows 1024 > quantum 300 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn > qdisc fq_codel 130: dev ge00 parent 1:13 limit 1024p flows 1024 > quantum 300 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn > qdisc ingress ffff: dev ge00 parent ffff:fff1 ---------------- > qdisc mq 1: dev sw10 root > qdisc fq_codel 10: dev sw10 parent 1:1 limit 800p flows 1024 quantum > 500 target 10.0ms interval 100.0ms > qdisc fq_codel 20: dev sw10 parent 1:2 limit 800p flows 1024 quantum > 300 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn > qdisc fq_codel 30: dev sw10 parent 1:3 limit 1000p flows 1024 quantum > 300 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn > qdisc fq_codel 40: dev sw10 parent 1:4 limit 1000p flows 1024 quantum > 300 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms > qdisc mq 1: dev sw00 root > qdisc fq_codel 10: dev sw00 parent 1:1 limit 800p flows 1024 quantum > 500 target 10.0ms interval 100.0ms > qdisc fq_codel 20: dev sw00 parent 1:2 limit 800p flows 1024 quantum > 300 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn > qdisc fq_codel 30: dev sw00 parent 1:3 limit 1000p flows 1024 quantum > 300 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn > qdisc fq_codel 40: dev sw00 parent 1:4 limit 1000p flows 1024 quantum > 300 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms > qdisc htb 1: dev ifb4ge00 root refcnt 2 r2q 10 default 12 > direct_packets_stat 0 direct_qlen 32 > qdisc fq_codel 110: dev ifb4ge00 parent 1:11 limit 1024p flows 1024 > quantum 500 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn > qdisc fq_codel 120: dev ifb4ge00 parent 1:12 limit 1024p flows 1024 > quantum 1500 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn > qdisc fq_codel 130: dev ifb4ge00 parent 1:13 limit 1024p flows 1024 > quantum 300 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn > qdisc htb 1: dev ifb4gw00 root refcnt 2 r2q 10 default 12 > direct_packets_stat 0 direct_qlen 32 > qdisc fq_codel 110: dev ifb4gw00 parent 1:11 limit 1024p flows 1024 > quantum 500 target 10.3ms interval 105.3ms ecn > qdisc fq_codel 120: dev ifb4gw00 parent 1:12 limit 1024p flows 1024 > quantum 1500 target 10.3ms interval 105.3ms ecn > qdisc fq_codel 130: dev ifb4gw00 parent 1:13 limit 1024p flows 1024 > quantum 300 target 10.3ms interval 105.3ms ecn > > image of RRUL 45s graph here with simple.qos, no tx changes, auto > LIMIT on FiOS 32/25 (30Mb/22.5Mb QoS): https://screencloud.net/v/tVV0 > - looks pretty good to me, but I should set up more MARK or DSCP > classifications for my important/unimportant traffic. MARK is probably > a better idea since it won't unnecessarily mis-flag outgoing traffic. > I assume QOS_MARK_ge00 sees marks from other interfaces too. > > I'm still unsure whether to apply simple/simplest to my secure > wireless or leave it alone, Dave's debloat script seems to have > wireless-specific optimizations when left on auto, does simple.qos > handle VO/VI/BE/BK queues as efficiently? I never top out my wireless > since it's used only for mobile phones anyways and I run HT20 which > seems to be more reliable/less latency. however my guest wifi I do > need to limit and segregate via firewall so I have it enabled. > > P.S. I learned the hard way NEVER to enable port 4 on the switch, > results in broken ethernet. port4 is unused and likely internally > reserved for unknown purposes. I'm still trying to figure out how it > maps an interface to an actual port, since I'd like to assign a single > switch switch port to it's own subnet for my FiOS router instead of > having to use a secondary router to clone the ge00 interface on the > backend router to forward FiOS ports to the verizon/FiOS MOCA bridge > router in order for alerts to display on set-top boxes such as caller > ID. There has to be a way of doing this without needing 3 routers... > My current thoughts are to remove the port (port3 in this case) from > the switch and make a new switch config with just 4 and 5t and somehow > make a new interface on that for the FiOS router, but assigning the > same ip address as the default gateway/route from ge00 on that port > might confuse routing. More information on their rather complicated > and seemingly unnecessary config with a backend router is located > here: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/verizonfios/3.0_Networking#16710