Re: [LibreQoS] Before/After Performance Comparison (Monitoring Mode)

["Robert Chacón" <robert.chacon@jackrabbitwireless.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2871 bytes --]

Point taken!

Before receiving this email I had started work on it. It's on a branch on
GitHub now <https://github.com/LibreQoE/LibreQoS/tree/monitor-mode/v1.3>.
It uses cpumap-pping and keeps HTB, but overrides all HTB class and leaf
rates to be 10Gbps so that borrowing isn't taking place anywhere - so we
can be as transparent as possible.

I'll try again another shot at monitoring-mode with ePPing instead.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 7:23 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:

> Robert Chacón via LibreQoS <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> writes:
>
> > I was hoping to add a monitoring mode which could be used before "turning
> > on" LibreQoS, ideally before v1.3 release. This way operators can really
> > see what impact it's having on end-user and network latency.
> >
> > The simplest solution I can think of is to implement Monitoring Mode
> using
> > cpumap-pping as we already do - with plain HTB and leaf classes with no
> > CAKE qdisc applied, and with HTB and leaf class rates set to impossibly
> > high amounts (no plan enforcement). This would allow for before/after
> > comparisons of Nodes (Access Points). My only concern with this approach
> is
> > that HTB, even with rates set impossibly high, may not be truly
> > transparent. It would be pretty easy to implement though.
> >
> > Alternatively we could use ePPing
> > <https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/tree/master/pping> but I
> worry
> > about throughput and the possibility of latency tracking being slightly
> > different from cpumap-pping, which could limit the utility of a
> comparison.
> > We'd have to match IPs in a way that's a bit more involved here.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Well, this kind of thing is exactly why I think concatenating the two
> programs (cpumap and pping) into a single BPF program was a mistake:
> those are two distinct pieces of functionality, and you want to be able
> to run them separately, as your "monitor mode" use case shows. The
> overhead of parsing the packet twice is trivial compared to everything
> else those apps are doing, so I don't think the gain is worth losing
> that flexibility.
>
> So I definitely think using the regular epping is the right thing to do
> here. Simon is looking into improving its reporting so it can be
> per-subnet using a user-supplied configuration file for the actual
> subnets, which should hopefully make this feasible. I'm sure he'll chime
> in here once he has something to test and/or with any questions that pop
> up in the process.
>
> Longer term, I'm hoping all of Herbert's other improvements to epping
> reporting/formatting can make it into upstream epping, so LibreQoS can
> just use that for everything :)
>
> -Toke
>


-- 
Robert Chacón
CEO | JackRabbit Wireless LLC <http://jackrabbitwireless.com>
Dev | LibreQoS.io

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3801 bytes --]