[Cerowrt-devel] aqm gui feedback on cerowrt-3.10.24-1 for linklayer adaption

Sebastian Moeller moeller0 at gmx.de
Sun Dec 15 18:45:00 EST 2013

hI Dave hi list,

On Dec 14, 2013, at 07:26 , Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:

> one of the things that makes me happy with all-up testing is that
> occasionally after completely blowing up my own work, I get to
> critique fresh work that isn't mine, in an area with which I have no
> expertise, with gratitude that I don't have to figure out the answer.
> :)
> So I spent some time clicking wildly all over the AQM gui webpage to
> see what I could break.
> 1) the aqm gui code doesn't work due to a bug at line 66.
> sc:depends("advanced", "1").
> sc has to be initialized first, which happens later in the file. Extra
> line removed in ceropackages, committed, pushed, you will need to do a
> pull. Merge failure?
> 2) it's not clear to me we have to support both the stab and
> htb_private methods of fixing htb's linklayer. It was important that
> these be fixed for everyone else that uses htb,
> but is one of these is faster than the other? I seem to recall one was
> a calculated value in the kernel, the other some sort of table. Does
> this choice need to be made by the
> user? The two variants benchmarked? Jesper?

	So I just went ahead and hid htb_private for the time being (by commenting out the definition in aqm.lua, can 
only be reenabled by editing, this is not ideal, but at lease confusing than the situation before)

> 3) Clicking "advanced configuration" on and off toggles display of the
> qdisc and qdisc script, and twiddling with the linklayer value brings
> up all the extra DSL detail. Yea!
> ... and I think I was wrong in mentally visualizing the thing
> If these were made tabs [Basic, Queueing Discipline, Linklayer,
> Priorities], there would be more room for explanatory text in
> particular and better alignment with the
> "look and feel" of the rest of the gui. Note that "priorities" is a
> placeholder for somehow
> bringing out something remotely similar to what openwrt's qos system
> already does
> and what AQM (ceroshaper? some other name is needed) does implicitly
> with optimizing for dns and ntp.

	The tabs are in. Since "Priorities" would be empty it does not exist yet. Let's see how you like the rest...

> ECN enablement should be brought out in "Queueing discipline" via the
> ALLECN variable. It seems likely ALLECN needs to have 4 states rather
> than 3, which needs to also be fixed in the scripts.
> While I'm at it, perhaps having tabs for each physical interface is
> not a horrible idea,
> but I shudder to think of people rate-limiting their wifi in the hope
> that that would help.
> ?
> 5) Adding a second interface shows @ge01 as an option, which isn't a
> real interface, and se00 as an option and not the gw* or sw*
> interfaces. Adding se00 with the default option
> gives me an error
> One or more required fields have no value!
> One or more required fields have no value!
> One or more required fields have no value!
> One or more required fields have no value!
> (and I'm pretty sure the aqm-scripts break even if this is correctly
> written to the config file)
> 6) feel free to add your copyright to the code.  :)
> I return now to figuring out why bringing up the wifi is so hosed. I
> will probably be reverting the kernel, netifd, and other things, way,
> way, way back to when they used to work.
> -- 
> Dave Täht
> Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

More information about the Cerowrt-devel mailing list