From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 852933B2F7; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:31:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail2.tohojo.dk 0AA2140D5E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1474648309; bh=WInlzJqGsIQnaouViPYyag/01AxLFMfF3NXxSgvtbBU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=cyl3S4p6/H23/V+FLRhdBedsN59eikm/+w1VjSGUqppMCGw9Fqzijcgavdk6vlNP1 CH7L/MW50ZUkQYkiEg4YRhW9+0hkwc/IBgQ+bxbcvl68qPrUu9WPzgB6DMe0DTRVtF 2WM+wfi/uzrKPF0w3U8sm0728tq1TsPUY6SDWsnY= Sender: toke@toke.dk Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E16FD863439; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 18:31:47 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Phineas Gage Cc: Dave Taht , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, "codel\@lists.bufferbloat.net" References: <945ED215-49E0-4F56-8B9A-FA95C0A82ABE@gmail.com> <5A4FB1B4-7B2F-4E71-AA86-548C1C26181F@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 18:31:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5A4FB1B4-7B2F-4E71-AA86-548C1C26181F@gmail.com> (Phineas Gage's message of "Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:39:08 +0200") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87d1jud1cc.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:31:52 -0000 Phineas Gage writes: > On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Phineas Gage wro= te: > > Question #1: Is it still effective to run fq_codel on our edge router wh= en 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 connect= ion > indistinguishable from a cabled connection as far as fq_codel is concern= ed? > > 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-anomaly-on-at= h9k.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 t= urn > fq_codel off, I hear pretty quickly, =E2=80=9Cwhat=E2=80=99s wrong with t= he 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 te= st > our meshed OpenWRT APs. Can it run LEDE (OpenWrt)? If so, all you need to do is upgrade to current trunk, and you'll be using the FQ-CoDel'ed driver :) > 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. Most likely, yes. You may also want to include the patches that gives you airtime fairness on those. Keeps slow stations from slowing everyone else down. I have a git tree with those here: https://kau.toke.dk/git/lede/ - it's slightly behind mainline LEDE, so you may want to use that as a base. This is the critical file, in that case: https://kau.toke.dk/git/lede/tree/package/kernel/mac80211/patches/347-ath9k= -Add-a-per-station-airtime-deficit-scheduler.patch > 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 ther= e, and not in > the APs or upstream devices. Depends on your traffic patterns, of course. But yeah, if all your clients share the same uplink and that has more bandwidth than the AP-to-WiFi link, then that is where the bottleneck would be. But a client with bad reception can end up with an effective rate as low as 6.5 Mbps, so not always. -Toke