[Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful"
dave.taht at gmail.com
Sun Mar 1 22:57:37 EST 2015
On this thread over here, an otherwise pretty clueful user chose
openwrt's qos-scripts over the sqm-scripts, because sqm-scripts had
*higher ping loss*.
(I note that both fq_codel enabled QoS systems outperformed
streamboost by a lot, which I am happy about)
wow. It never registered to me that users might make a value judgement
based on the amount of ping loss, and in looking back in time, I can
think of multiple people that have said things based on their
perception that losing pings was bad, and that sqm-scripts was "worse
than something else because of it."
sqm-scripts explicitly *deprioritizes* ping. In particular, this
reduces the impact of ping floods from ipv6 to your entire /64, or to
your whole ipv4, fairly well. And I had made the point that
prioritizing ping was a bad idea here (including some dripping sarcasm
later in the piece).
but wow, it never occurred to me - in all these years - that ping was
the next core metric on simple tests. I can be really dumb.
I use netperf-wrapper and tend to ignore most of the ping data, but
certainly on some benchmarks we have published ping doesn't look as
good as the other stuff, *because it is deprioritized below all the
other traffic*. Not strictly rate limited - as some systems do by
default, including openwrt, which is impossible to get right - just
How can we fix this user perception, short of re-prioritizing ping in
Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again!
More information about the Bloat