From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F0633B343 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:23:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id w84so22574442wmg.1 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:23:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=ic5GDAJjGaqNXLCRvW/5YkkVkFM74DT6PtlQU4pJCoo=; b=syzWBOgOFk55q1IBYXKoVQH6cG/tyOKtjgtIu3FpNRirf7xv1F9bokhtBtjyG5crTk 6nn7u8KEJpJdcyxcsCtUJKe+CH/XRGycmVhmEWeGacfFhk6om3EH0iIT80LhXHO+wiTm YaJiarJPYH3Q+V9dp0Sqp0lcufj11Wxl2B7wAKfusFnF8WCgobYb55QWTyaJyc2xg+NJ O48QWQJvBaoJevmuPH8sko6SNCD6VQduwrlg6jOh2dh0sQYGYoDaO/q9N4O2uQrkv1PW YAJwMfxcu0kJHsyvo1TX83YreFF4GBwcRpPprYUUtsOImb18h5JtVrsgBm7PjnaHZFPk 1mPg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=ic5GDAJjGaqNXLCRvW/5YkkVkFM74DT6PtlQU4pJCoo=; b=D7IpTo0vLqTKYDIa/IcaxvQ+pfh2YpD0FtDACzNlJ3Qe+8OIw9ozYx/uGxyKj74GlB gSxP+2CokCwZH6LDq+Y99Z8y3mb6srCkOzpwC8tlfJL6sB1o70z1JKBly8+9dwUQc5/1 fjK1UNLMcuKgdXhOmLhGoEITq5F2OD3BXWWJ+5NSmpPtV+giMTOXjFw9sieGRU2mL6dM WcwEppt8Kj4MOXZ2T0nSI4Mc3r7N3dUTa7kPmLFFpe2eI8CiM2jiK1RX4AgsEdaBRDSI qjCH7H9bG27dLBQ+a1XrB6n9NBChXK8GVyaE56oj65KdrXVyikf3rtKm3rktQYxgabg9 6ang== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkHgwkTmAy9S0r3B9Jk2Jtu21QIvEjOHovxjWuIDdWcD04f/zY2YGh/BsbAui+BVQ== X-Received: by 10.28.141.133 with SMTP id p127mr2142877wmd.119.1474626220398; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.72.54] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.99.119.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k2sm2351716wmg.23.2016.09.23.03.23.39 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4CF3C4E0-F4E4-402F-9688-81EA6D5EBA02" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Phineas Gage In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:23:38 +0200 Cc: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-Id: <2BD25E34-8C7F-4A46-A670-F8529CDA85E9@gmail.com> References: <945ED215-49E0-4F56-8B9A-FA95C0A82ABE@gmail.com> To: Loganaden Velvindron X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Codel] Using fq_codel with a WiFi uplink to the Internet X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:23:41 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4CF3C4E0-F4E4-402F-9688-81EA6D5EBA02 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Loganaden Velvindron = wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Phineas Gage > wrote: >> I have two questions about using fq_codel on an edge router when the >> Internet uplink is through point-to-point WiFi: >>=20 >> Question #1: Is it still effective to run fq_codel on our edge router = when I >> have a WiFi uplink to the Internet, instead of a cabled connection = like >> ADSL? And related to that, is a high quality point-to-point WiFi = connection >> indistinguishable from a cabled connection as far as fq_codel is = concerned? > Yes, it is effective to a small extent. However, I would highly > recommend that you look into make-wifi-fast, and start testing the > firmware that Toke uploaded. >=20 > See this: http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/crypto_fq_bug/ = Thanks, this looks great. I=E2=80=99ll see if my WISP is willing to = experiment on our point-to-point connection, but it would require driver = support for an Atheros AR9300 on a Mikrotik 911-5HnD (firmware 3.30). = That=E2=80=99s on our side. There=E2=80=99s another Mikrotik on the = other side, but I don=E2=80=99t know its specs yet. >> Question #2: Assuming the answer to Question #1 is an overall "yes", = is it >> then better to have a guaranteed speed from the ISP, instead of = having a >> variable but potentially higher speed, so that I can control the = queue and >> have fq_codel and HTB prioritization work effectively? > Guaranteed speed, or at least minimum guaranteed speed for both upload > and download is a good idea. You don't have to login and tweak each > time. Ok, that=E2=80=99s along the lines of what I=E2=80=99m thinking also. I = may ask them for flexibility in the contract and try the aggregated = connection to save money, then switch to guaranteed depending on the = actual conditions on their network. >> LAN <=3D> Linux bridge with fq_codel <=3D> ADSL Modem 0.4 / 5.0 Mbps = <=3D> DSLAM =E2=80=A6 > I have a similar configuration: LAN <=3D> fq_codel (tp-link archer c7 = v2 > with pppoe) <=3D> FTTH modem (bridge mode) >=20 > May I ask why put the ADSL modem in bridge mode, and let the fq_codel > box handle pope ? This way, if the bridge ever fails, I can tell someone even if I=E2=80=99m= off-site to just =E2=80=9Cplug in the red cable=E2=80=9D, bypassing the = bridge. The modem does PPPoE, DHCP and DNS caching. The bridge provides = better DNS caching, an NTP server, and HTB+fq_codel, but if it=E2=80=99s = replaced with a cable, the network continues working without any = configuration changes. Is there a benefit to running PPPoE on the bridge, other than possibly a = bit faster PPPoE encapsulation? >> But now, we have a chance to improve our throughput problem by = switching to >> a point-to-point WiFi uplink that could hit speeds of 30-40 Mbit = symmetric >> (more on the speeds later). We have to decide on starting a contract = with >> them. At the same time, I=E2=80=99ll be switching the bridge to a = Ubiquiti >> EdgeRouter X, which has fq_codel in its kernel, but should have the = same >> effect. It would look something like: >>=20 > Does EdgeRouter X also implement BQL for its network drivers ? I hadn=E2=80=99t heard of BQL actually, so I read this: = https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/BQL_enabled_drivers/ = . = I don=E2=80=99t think I currently have BQL in my setup, and it=E2=80=99s = still effective, maybe because I=E2=80=99m doing rate limiting, but that = makes me wonder what I might be missing. Also, I started this thread for = an update on BQL support in the EdgeRouter X: = https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX/EdgeRouter-X-BQL-support-for-etherne= t/m-p/1684788#U1684788 = If it=E2=80=99s as easy to add BQL (4-8 lines of source) as this says: = https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Best_practices_for_benchma= rking_Codel_and_FQ_Codel/ = , I could probably do it. I added a small = ioctl for CDDA support to a Linux sound card driver some years ago, so = have _very_ basic kernel development experience. Q1: In what cases does BQL help, and is it like do be more useful or = higher or lower bandwidths, or does that make a difference? Q2: Is there a way I can tell in Linux if a given net driver supports = BQL without looking at the source? For the bridge, I=E2=80=99m repurposing an old Mac Mini with 1.25GHz PPC = and am using its internal adapter (a Sun GEM 100Mbit adapter using the = sungem driver) on the inside of our network. The outside, which has the = fq_codel applied to it, is an Apple USB 100Mbit adapter. Q3: Is it better to run fq_codel on an internal PCI based network = adapter, or a USB ethernet adapter, or is there no difference? In case it matters, the kernel has CONFIG_HZ=3D250. Also, I try to turn = off any offloads in the interfaces file (to be honest, I don=E2=80=99t = know if it makes a difference with the USB ethernet driver): # eth1 interface to cable modem auto eth1 iface eth1 inet manual pre-up /sbin/ethtool --offload eth1 gso off sg off gro off post-up /sbin/ifconfig eth1 mtu 1492 --Apple-Mail=_4CF3C4E0-F4E4-402F-9688-81EA6D5EBA02 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@gmail.com>= wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at = 1:59 PM, Phineas Gage <phineas919@gmail.com> wrote:
I have two questions about using fq_codel on an edge = router when the
Internet uplink is through point-to-point = WiFi:

Question #1: Is it still effective to = run fq_codel on our edge router when I
have a WiFi uplink = to the Internet, instead of a cabled connection like
ADSL? = And related to that, is a high quality point-to-point WiFi connection
indistinguishable from a cabled connection as far as fq_codel = is concerned?
Yes, it is effective to a = small extent. However, I would highly
recommend that you look into = make-wifi-fast, and start testing the
firmware that Toke uploaded.

See this: http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/crypto_fq_bug/

Thanks, = this looks great. I=E2=80=99ll see if my WISP is willing to experiment = on our point-to-point connection, but it would require driver support = for an Atheros AR9300 on a Mikrotik 911-5HnD (firmware 3.30). That=E2=80=99= s on our side. There=E2=80=99s another Mikrotik on the other side, but I = don=E2=80=99t know its specs yet.

Question #2: Assuming the = answer to Question #1 is an overall "yes", is it
then = better to have a guaranteed speed from the ISP, instead of having a
variable but potentially higher speed, so that I can control = the queue and
have fq_codel and HTB prioritization work = effectively?
Guaranteed speed, = or at least minimum guaranteed speed for both upload
and download is a = good idea. You don't have to login and tweak each
time.

Ok, = that=E2=80=99s along the lines of what I=E2=80=99m thinking also. I may = ask them for flexibility in the contract and try the aggregated = connection to save money, then switch to guaranteed depending on the = actual conditions on their network.

LAN <=3D> Linux bridge = with fq_codel <=3D> ADSL Modem 0.4 / 5.0 Mbps <=3D> DSLAM = =E2=80=A6
I have a similar configuration: = LAN <=3D> fq_codel (tp-link archer c7 v2
with pppoe) = <=3D> FTTH modem (bridge mode)

May I ask why put the ADSL modem in bridge mode, = and let the fq_codel
box handle pope ?

This way, if the bridge ever fails, I can tell = someone even if I=E2=80=99m off-site to just =E2=80=9Cplug in the red = cable=E2=80=9D, bypassing the bridge. The modem does PPPoE, DHCP and DNS = caching. The bridge provides better DNS caching, an NTP server, and = HTB+fq_codel, but if it=E2=80=99s replaced with a cable, the network = continues working without any configuration changes.

Is there a benefit to running PPPoE on the bridge, = other than possibly a bit faster PPPoE encapsulation?

But now, we have a chance to improve our throughput problem = by switching to
a point-to-point WiFi uplink that could = hit speeds of 30-40 Mbit symmetric
(more on the speeds = later). We have to decide on starting a contract with
them. = At the same time, I=E2=80=99ll be switching the bridge to a Ubiquiti
EdgeRouter X, which has fq_codel in its kernel, but should = have the same
effect. It would look something like:

Does EdgeRouter X = also implement BQL for its network drivers ?

I hadn=E2=80=99t heard of BQL actually, so I read = this: https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/BQL_enabled_dri= vers/. I don=E2=80=99t think I currently have BQL in my setup, and = it=E2=80=99s still effective, maybe because I=E2=80=99m doing rate = limiting, but that makes me wonder what I might be missing. Also, I = started this thread for an update on BQL support in the EdgeRouter = X:


If it=E2=80=99s as easy to add BQL (4-8 lines of = source) as this says: https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Best_practices_= for_benchmarking_Codel_and_FQ_Codel/, I could probably do it. I = added a small ioctl for CDDA support to a Linux sound card driver some = years ago, so have _very_ basic kernel development = experience.

Q1: In what cases does = BQL help, and is it like do be more useful or higher or lower = bandwidths, or does that make a difference?

Q2: Is there a way I can tell in Linux if a given = net driver supports BQL without looking at the source?

For the bridge, I=E2=80=99m repurposing an old Mac = Mini with 1.25GHz PPC and am using its internal adapter (a Sun GEM = 100Mbit adapter using the sungem driver) on the inside of our network. = The outside, which has the fq_codel applied to it, is an Apple USB = 100Mbit adapter.

Q3: Is it better to = run fq_codel on an internal PCI based network adapter, or a USB ethernet = adapter, or is there no difference?

In= case it matters, the kernel has CONFIG_HZ=3D250. Also, I try to turn = off any offloads in the interfaces file (to be honest, I don=E2=80=99t = know if it makes a difference with the USB ethernet = driver):

# eth1 interface to cable = modem
auto eth1
iface eth1 inet manual
= pre-up /sbin/ethtool --offload eth1 gso off sg off gro off
= post-up /sbin/ifconfig eth1 mtu 1492

= --Apple-Mail=_4CF3C4E0-F4E4-402F-9688-81EA6D5EBA02--