From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (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 3AE133B2ED; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 07:39:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id w84so26204979wmg.1; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 04:39:11 -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=eN4IurlXmmZSlCSf8cJTHt4MCSpxYRI0HXCrdiEqPVQ=; b=CUR9t+Z4h9zNsHTZgQrMmx72GYJzXW/79IqfFYNP5446z7mDmIKe7Uf6eliVvfP3G5 JT1fH7gL78T4Hrd3xuTc7fplVP6O1Zd98kPt6FZVhXIJUEtMI8gXneYxZe2UKLqo+ham j7lRHcanTHsqysNnY3Fg0jMH0u7Vwz25C/5yThvhGEIRW48v6WxZ6gI+P6Uzop1lSz8h HokFjpWritozLka+FfSXxRW8rHiHJOuNUgxK0TDjO7ffDNecGUtcm01sisQ2iCELpoPS trbPHaxxO/r9MUxNU4fidSc+2axNsdiuxCM1GuYnytjqo+jGIY5g/IXQqu79cEjmo9Vm uzXA== 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=eN4IurlXmmZSlCSf8cJTHt4MCSpxYRI0HXCrdiEqPVQ=; b=aq/JXpwIDle2LRlpjNplQGqPRunCojbHD8kVQWv7VuT5N8JtVVGaR8zh54fxQHolwJ 5KOR3Bu+PXCsDo2dZN6iljXFl1kVi4uPe/toRi5BcFceH0z+XOY9G2p12hM6M8AL/NXv 4pZzlaTnYBy7ya5R8n5cilGsdX7G8UTbxpsj/vptVGY3GGhf8y1ApwXo4N6KfmJvYh0x /kPYqSfg49yXA6b+MxhaZVGAYjIdOv9jKmf9o4Bp3EfKjQfvZmXxJT8mbtMNS8Cxdr07 PL9G+h0C9QNgTKMjGVCGIKwnMojvZPRl/Gx/Y2sYdVBCCurfzvypZlaqBGzP0xKpBWAp ZDkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkYGHnQC48zb8l/tvRMmRAlLtehvtYQguuTcu4bwKwn36iDyqX44XubHC8qnxibdw== X-Received: by 10.28.229.131 with SMTP id c125mr2267533wmh.97.1474630750258; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 04:39:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.72.54] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.99.119.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n131sm2717163wmd.3.2016.09.23.04.39.09 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 04:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D7A207B8-8B18-4BA9-9FD8-2239037D1671" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Phineas Gage In-Reply-To: Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Message-Id: <5A4FB1B4-7B2F-4E71-AA86-548C1C26181F@gmail.com> References: <945ED215-49E0-4F56-8B9A-FA95C0A82ABE@gmail.com> To: Dave Taht X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 08:47:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [Codel] Using fq_codel with a WiFi uplink to the Internet X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:39:11 -0000 X-Original-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:39:08 +0200 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:39:11 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D7A207B8-8B18-4BA9-9FD8-2239037D1671 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Phineas Gage > wrote: >> 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? >=20 > It has, until recent developments, been helpful but not as effective > as we'd like. >=20 > We have two sets of code in the process of being finalized that should > work better > for a reasonably fast wifi uplink. >=20 > blog.cerowrt.org/post/fq_codel_on_ath10k/ = >=20 > = https://blog.tohojo.dk/2016/06/fixing-the-wifi-performance-anomaly-on-ath9= k.html = That looks grand. If I ever see it working, I think I'll be as emotional = as the OP of the ath10k article. That is, having spent some time setting = up an fq_codel bridge for our camp, and getting blank stares when I talk = excitedly about what I=E2=80=99m doing. And yet if I turn fq_codel off, = I hear pretty quickly, =E2=80=9Cwhat=E2=80=99s wrong with the = Internet?=E2=80=9D Do I have any chance of running fq_codel in the driver on a Mikrotik = 911-5HnD (firmware 3.30) with Atheros AR9300? If so, I may be able to = test it. The camp will be off-season soon until next April for the snowy = Czech winter, so it=E2=80=99s a good time for testing, as I also test = our meshed OpenWRT APs. Q: Would it also be useful to have fq_codel running on our APs? They are = Open Mesh OM2P HS=E2=80=99s with "Atheros AR9341 rev 1=E2=80=9D chips. I could add it now using =E2=80=9Ctc", but any level lower than that = would require the driver support, obviously. My feeling is that the rate = limiting on my Linux bridge puts the queues =E2=80=9Cmostly=E2=80=9D = there, and not in the APs or upstream devices. >> Option A: We can choose a maximum of 40/40 Mbit with 1:5 aggregation, >> meaning we could get 40 Mbit, but we could also get a lot less at = times (8 >> Mbit I assume), depending on other network load. >>=20 >> Option B: We can get a guaranteed bandwidth, but it costs more, so = the >> maximum throughput we can pay for would be less. We would probably = choose >> around 6/6 Mbit off-season, and 20/20 Mbit on-season, as the camp is = a >> seasonal business. >>=20 >> My feeling, assuming that the answer to Question #1 is "yes" and I = can >> effectively use fq_codel with WiFi at all, is to go with Option B, = the >> guaranteed bandwidth. That way, I could set fq_codel to a little less = than >> this bandwidth, and hopefully manage buffer bloat and do HTB = prioritization >> in the same way I do now. But it depends on the answers to my two = questions, >> is fq_codel still effective when using a WiFi uplink in general, and = if so, >> is it better to go with a guaranteed bandwidth. >=20 > Lacking control of both sides, I would go for the garunteed bandwidth > and try to control it on the ethernet router, or with control of one > side, rate limit inbound as per what you said and let outbound float > (when the new code lands) Thanks for the feedback. I only also wonder now if I should really have = a BQL driver, or whether it makes a difference in this case. And also, = whether I should rather be doing fq_codel on the ethernet adapter = that=E2=80=99s internal to my Mac Mini, rather than the external USB = adapter I=E2=80=99m using (more details on that also in my previous = reply to Loganaden). --Apple-Mail=_D7A207B8-8B18-4BA9-9FD8-2239037D1671 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On = Sep 21, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>= wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at = 2:59 AM, Phineas Gage <phineas919@gmail.com> wrote:
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?

It has, until recent developments, been = helpful but not as effective
as we'd like.

We have two sets of code in the process = of being finalized that should
work better
for a reasonably fast wifi = uplink.

blog.cerowrt.org/post/fq_codel_on_ath10k/

https://blog.tohojo.dk/2016/06/fixing-the-wifi-performance-anom= aly-on-ath9k.html

That looks = grand. If I ever see it working, I think I'll be as emotional as the OP = of the ath10k article. That is, having spent some time setting up an = fq_codel bridge for our camp, and getting blank stares when I talk = excitedly about what I=E2=80=99m doing. And yet if I turn fq_codel off, = I hear pretty quickly, =E2=80=9Cwhat=E2=80=99s wrong with the = Internet?=E2=80=9D

Do I have any = chance of running fq_codel in the driver on a Mikrotik 911-5HnD = (firmware 3.30) with Atheros AR9300? If so, I may be able to test it. = The camp will be off-season soon until next April for the snowy Czech = winter, so it=E2=80=99s a good time for testing, as I also test our = meshed OpenWRT APs.

Q: Would it also = be useful to have fq_codel running on our APs? They are Open Mesh OM2P = HS=E2=80=99s with "Atheros AR9341 rev 1=E2=80=9D chips.

I could add it now using =E2=80=9Ctc", but any = level lower than that would require the driver support, obviously. My = feeling is that the rate limiting on my Linux bridge puts the queues = =E2=80=9Cmostly=E2=80=9D there, and not in the APs or upstream = devices.

Option A: We can choose a maximum of 40/40 Mbit with = 1:5 aggregation,
meaning we could get 40 Mbit, but we = could also get a lot less at times (8
Mbit I assume), = depending on other network load.

Option B: = We can get a guaranteed bandwidth, but it costs more, so the
maximum throughput we can pay for would be less. We would = probably choose
around 6/6 Mbit off-season, and 20/20 Mbit = on-season, as the camp is a
seasonal business.

My feeling, assuming that the answer to = Question #1 is "yes" and I can
effectively use fq_codel = with WiFi at all, is to go with Option B, the
guaranteed = bandwidth. That way, I could set fq_codel to a little less than
this bandwidth, and hopefully manage buffer bloat and do HTB = prioritization
in the same way I do now. But it depends on = the answers to my two questions,
is fq_codel still = effective when using a WiFi uplink in general, and if so,
is= it better to go with a guaranteed bandwidth.

Lacking control of both sides, I would go for = the garunteed bandwidth
and try to control it on the ethernet = router, or with control of one
side, rate limit inbound as per what you = said and let outbound float
(when the new code lands)

Thanks for the = feedback. I only also wonder now if I should really have a BQL driver, = or whether it makes a difference in this case. And also, whether I = should rather be doing fq_codel on the ethernet adapter that=E2=80=99s = internal to my Mac Mini, rather than the external USB adapter I=E2=80=99m = using (more details on that also in my previous reply to = Loganaden).

= --Apple-Mail=_D7A207B8-8B18-4BA9-9FD8-2239037D1671--