moeller0 at gmx.de
Sun Dec 8 05:40:31 EST 2013
On Dec 7, 2013, at 13:59 , Juliusz Chroboczek <jch at pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
>>> Perhaps you should push your system to OpenWRT?
>> There is still some work going on to streamline the gui.
> Fair enough. That's important.
>> there are less features in the aqm-scripts for prioritizing packet
>> types than qos-scripts.
> I wouldn't bother much with that. The promise of fq_codel is that we
> can get rid of our prioritising hacks -- if we need that kind of
> features, then fq_codel has failed.
Is that really true? given enough concurrent flows, critical flows might be delayed purely be the round robin scheduling of equally "worthy" packets in fq_codel, so some residual priory system might still make sense...
>> I just had to come up with a way to disable it at high (> 80 mbit)
>> rates on incoming traffic (not enough cpu in cerowrt),
> I wouldn't bother with that either. 120 Mbit/s is the highest rate you
> can get in Europe as far as I can tell, so being able to push 80 Mbit/s
> on a four year old router is fine (as long as you're careful to avoid
> shaping traffic between LAN and WLAN -- I certainly wouldn't want
> backing up my laptop to be capped at 80 Mbit/s).
mmmh, currently in Germany residential fiber tops out at 200Mbit/s, cable at 150, and VDSL tops out at 50Mbit/s. Next year cable companies promised 200Mbit/s and the biggest VDSL provider promised100Mbit/sec (G.993.5 Vectoring). So, the wndr3[7,8]00 are getting a bit long in the tooth.
What would be a reasonable replacement, anybody any good ideas?
@Dave: for the one tier shaper, maybe using TBF instead of HTB will allow higher shaping rates? (I happily admit , I have no clue which part of HTB is the expensive one, the token bucket filter or the hierarchy.)
>> so I'd like it to run faster, maybe using drr in that case, or
>> something like what free.fr uses...
> What are they using?
>> And there are actually two aqm/packet scheduling shapers in there (a
>> simple 1 tier and a 3 tier one),
> Remove the non-default features. Be a man, Dave, dump it all.
Being more cautious, not to say cowardly, I would opt for hiding the non-default features :) Kidding aside, what should be the default?
>> In the interim, existing openwrt users can add ceropackages-3.3 into
>> their feeds.
> They won't. If you want to have an effect on the world, you need to
> push it into the default OpenWRT scripts.
> -- Juliusz
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
More information about the Bloat