[LibreQoS] In BPF pping - so far

Herbert Wolverson herberticus at gmail.com
Wed Oct 19 10:05:49 EDT 2022 

Also, I forgot to mention that I *think* the current version has removed
the requirement that the inbound
and outbound classifiers be placed on the same CPU. I know interduo was
particularly keen on packing
upload into fewer cores. I'll add that to my list of things to test.

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:01 AM Herbert Wolverson <herberticus at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'll definitely take a look - that does look interesting. I don't have X11
> on any of my test VMs, but
> it looks like it can work without the GUI.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:58 AM Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> could I coax you to adopt flent?
>>
>> apt-get install flent netperf irtt fping
>>
>> You sometimes have to compile netperf yourself with --enable-demo on
>> some systems.
>> There are a bunch of python libs neede for the gui, but only on the
>> client.
>>
>> Then you can run a really gnarly test series and plot the results over
>> time.
>>
>> flent --socket-stats --step-size=.05 -t 'the-test-conditions' -H
>> the_server_name rrul # 110 other tests
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 6:44 AM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS
>> <libreqos at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey,
>> >
>> > Testing the current version (
>> https://github.com/thebracket/cpumap-pping-hackjob ), it's doing better
>> than I hoped. This build has shared (not per-cpu) maps, and a userspace
>> daemon (xdp_pping) to extract and reset stats.
>> >
>> > My testing environment has grown a bit:
>> > * ShaperVM - running Ubuntu Server and LibreQoS, with the new
>> cpumap-pping-hackjob version of xdp-cpumap.
>> > * ExtTest - running Ubuntu Server, set as 10.64.1.1. Hosts an iperf
>> server.
>> > * ClientInt1 - running Ubuntu Server (minimal), set as 10.64.1.2. Hosts
>> iperf client.
>> > * ClientInt2 - running Ubuntu Server (minimal), set as 10.64.1.3. Hosts
>> iperf client.
>> >
>> > ClientInt1, ClientInt2 and one interface (LAN facing) of ShaperVM are
>> on a virtual switch.
>> > ExtTest and the other interface (WAN facing) of ShaperVM are on a
>> different virtual switch.
>> >
>> > These are all on a host machine running Windows 11, a core i7 12th gen,
>> 32 Gb RAM and fast SSD setup.
>> >
>> > TEST 1: DUAL STREAMS, LOW THROUGHPUT
>> >
>> > For this test, LibreQoS is configured:
>> > * Two APs, each with 5gbit/s max.
>> > * 100.64.1.2 and 100.64.1.3 setup as CPEs, each limited to about
>> 100mbit/s. They map to 1:5 and 2:5 respectively (separate CPUs).
>> > * Set to use Cake
>> >
>> > On each client, roughly simultaneously run: iperf -c 100.64.1.1 -t 500
>> (for a long run). Running xdp_pping yields correct results:
>> >
>> > [
>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 4, "min" : 3, "max" : 5, "samples" : 11},
>> > {"tc":"2:5", "avg" : 4, "min" : 3, "max" : 5, "samples" : 11},
>> > {}]
>> >
>> > Or when I waited a while to gather/reset:
>> >
>> > [
>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 4, "min" : 3, "max" : 6, "samples" : 60},
>> > {"tc":"2:5", "avg" : 4, "min" : 3, "max" : 5, "samples" : 60},
>> > {}]
>> >
>> > The ShaperVM shows no errors, just periodic logging that it is
>> recording data.  CPU is about 2-3% on two CPUs, zero on the others (as
>> expected).
>> >
>> > After 500 seconds of continual iperfing, each client reported a
>> throughput of 104 Mbit/sec and 6.06 GBytes of data transmitted.
>> >
>> > So for smaller streams, I'd call this a success.
>> >
>> > TEST 2: DUAL STREAMS, HIGH THROUGHPUT
>> >
>> > For this test, LibreQoS is configured:
>> > * Two APs, each with 5gb/s max.
>> > * 100.64.1.2 and 100.64.1.3 setup as CPEs, each limited to 5Gbit/s!
>> Mapped to 1:5 and 2:5 respectively (separate CPUs).
>> >
>> > Run iperfc -c 100.64.1.1 -t 500 on each client at the same time.
>> >
>> > xdp_pping shows results, too:
>> >
>> > [
>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 4, "min" : 1, "max" : 7, "samples" : 58},
>> > {"tc":"2:5", "avg" : 7, "min" : 3, "max" : 11, "samples" : 58},
>> > {}]
>> >
>> > [
>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 5, "min" : 4, "max" : 8, "samples" : 13},
>> > {"tc":"2:5", "avg" : 8, "min" : 7, "max" : 10, "samples" : 13},
>> > {}]
>> >
>> > The ShaperVM shows two CPUs pegging between 70 and 90 percent.
>> >
>> > After 500 seconds of continual iperfing, each client reported a
>> throughput of 2.72 Gbits/sec (158 GBytes) and 3.89 Gbits/sec and 226 GBytes.
>> >
>> > Maxing out HyperV like this is inducing a bit of latency (which is to
>> be expected), but it's not bad. I also forgot to disable hyperthreading,
>> and looking at the host performance it is sometimes running the second
>> virtual CPU on an underpowered "fake" CPU.
>> >
>> > So for two large streams, I think we're doing pretty well also!
>> >
>> > TEST 3: DUAL STREAMS, SINGLE CPU
>> >
>> > This test is designed to try and blow things up. It's the same as test
>> 2, but both CPEs are set to the same CPU (1), using TC handles 1:5 and 1:6.
>> >
>> > ShaperVM CPU1 maxed out in the high 90s, the other CPUs were idle. The
>> pping stats start to show a bit of degradation in performance for pounding
>> it so hard:
>> >
>> > [
>> > {"tc":"1:6", "avg" : 10, "min" : 9, "max" : 19, "samples" : 24},
>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 10, "min" : 8, "max" : 18, "samples" : 24},
>> > {}]
>> >
>> > For whatever reason, it smoothed out over time:
>> >
>> > [
>> > {"tc":"1:6", "avg" : 10, "min" : 9, "max" : 12, "samples" : 50},
>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 10, "min" : 8, "max" : 13, "samples" : 50},
>> > {}]
>> >
>> > Surprisingly (to me), I didn't encounter errors. Each client received
>> 2.22 Gbit/s performance, over 129 Gbytes of data.
>> >
>> > TEST 4: DUAL STREAMS, 50 SUB-STREAMS
>> >
>> > This test is also designed to break things. Same as test 3, but using
>> iperf -c 100.64.1.1 -P 50 -t 120 - 50 substreams, to try and really tax the
>> flow tracking. (Shorter time window because I really wanted to go and find
>> coffee)
>> >
>> > ShaperVM CPU sat at around 80-97%, tending towards 97%. pping results
>> show that this torture test is worsening performance, and there's always
>> lots of samples in the buffer:
>> >
>> > [
>> > {"tc":"1:6", "avg" : 23, "min" : 19, "max" : 27, "samples" : 49},
>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 24, "min" : 19, "max" : 27, "samples" : 49},
>> > {}]
>> >
>> > This test also ran better than I expected. You can definitely see some
>> latency creeping in as I make the system work hard. Each VM showed around
>> 2.4 Gbit/s in total performance at the end of the iperf session. There's
>> definitely some latency creeping in, which is expected - but I'm not sure I
>> expected quite that much.
>> >
>> > WHAT'S NEXT & CONCLUSION
>> >
>> > I noticed that I forgot to turn off efficient power management on my
>> VMs and host, and left Hyperthreading on by mistake. So that hurts overall
>> performance.
>> >
>> > The base system seems to be working pretty solidly, at least for small
>> tests.Next up, I'll be removing extraneous debug reporting code, removing
>> some code paths that don't do anything but report, and looking for any
>> small optimization opportunities. I'll then re-run these tests. Once that's
>> done, I hope to find a maintenance window on my WISP and try it with actual
>> traffic.
>> >
>> > I also need to re-run these tests without the pping system to provide
>> some before/after analysis.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:01 PM Herbert Wolverson <
>> herberticus at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It's probably not entirely thread-safe right now (ran into some issues
>> reading per_cpu maps back from userspace; hopefully, I'll get that figured
>> out) - but the commits I just pushed have it basically working on
>> single-stream testing. :-)
>> >>
>> >> Setup cpumap as usual, and periodically run xdp-pping. This gives you
>> per-connection RTT information in JSON:
>> >>
>> >> [
>> >> {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 5, "min" : 5, "max" : 5, "samples" : 1},
>> >> {}]
>> >>
>> >> (With the extra {} because I'm not tracking the tail and haven't done
>> comma removal). The tool also empties the various maps used to gather data,
>> acting as a "reset" point. There's a max of 60 samples per queue, in a
>> ringbuffer setup (so newest will start to overwrite the oldest).
>> >>
>> >> I'll start trying to test on a larger scale now.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 3:34 PM Robert Chacón <
>> robert.chacon at jackrabbitwireless.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hey Herbert,
>> >>>
>> >>> Fantastic work! Super exciting to see this coming together,
>> especially so quickly.
>> >>> I'll test it soon.
>> >>> I understand and agree with your decision to omit certain features
>> (ICMP tracking,DNS tracking, etc) to optimize performance for our use case.
>> Like you said, in order to merge the functionality without a performance
>> hit, merging them is sort of the only way right now. Otherwise there would
>> be a lot of redundancy and lost throughput for an ISP's use. Though
>> hopefully long term there will be a way to keep all projects working
>> independently but interoperably with a plugin system of some kind.
>> >>>
>> >>> By the way, I'm making some headway on LibreQoS v1.3. Focusing on
>> optimizations for high sub counts (8000+ subs) as well as stateful changes
>> to the queue structure.
>> >>> I'm working to set up a physical lab to test high throughput and high
>> client count scenarios.
>> >>> When testing beyond ~32,000 filters we get "no space left on device"
>> from xdp-cpumap-tc, which I think relates to the bpf map size limitation
>> you mentioned. Maybe in the coming months we can take a look at that.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyway great work on the cpumap-pping program! Excited to see more on
>> this.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Robert
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 12:45 PM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS <
>> libreqos at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hey,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My current (unfinished) progress on this is now available here:
>> https://github.com/thebracket/cpumap-pping-hackjob
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I mean it about the warnings, this isn't at all stable, debugged -
>> and can't promise that it won't unleash the nasal demons
>> >>>> (to use a popular C++ phrase). The name is descriptive! ;-)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> With that said, I'm pretty happy so far:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * It runs only on the classifier - which xdp-cpumap-tc has nicely
>> shunted onto a dedicated CPU. It has to run on both
>> >>>>   the inbound and outbound classifiers, since otherwise it would
>> only see half the conversation.
>> >>>> * It does assume that your ingress and egress CPUs are mapped to the
>> same interface; I do that anyway in BracketQoS. Not doing
>> >>>>   that opens up a potential world of pain, since writes to the
>> shared maps would require a locking scheme. Too much locking, and you lose
>> all of the benefit of using multiple CPUs to begin with.
>> >>>> * It is pretty wasteful of RAM, but most of the shaper systems I've
>> worked with have lots of it.
>> >>>> * I've been gradually removing features that I don't want for
>> BracketQoS. A hypothetical future "useful to everyone" version wouldn't do
>> that.
>> >>>> * Rate limiting is working, but I removed the requirement for a
>> shared configuration provided from userland - so right now it's always set
>> to report at 1 second intervals per stream.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My testbed is currently 3 Hyper-V VMs - a simple "client" and
>> "world", and a "shaper" VM in between running a slightly hacked-up LibreQoS.
>> >>>> iperf from "client" to "world" (with Libre set to allow 10gbit/s
>> max, via a cake/HTB queue setup) is around 5 gbit/s at present, on my
>> >>>> test PC (the host is a core i7, 12th gen, 12 cores - 64gb RAM and
>> fast SSDs)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Output currently consists of debug messages reading:
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   515.399222: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Flow open event
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   515.399239: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 374696
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   515.399466: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Flow open event
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   515.399475: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 247069
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   516.405151: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 5217155
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   517.405248: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4515394
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   518.406117: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4481289
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   519.406255: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4255268
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   520.407864: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 5249493
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   521.406664: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 3795993
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   522.407469: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 3949519
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   523.408126: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4365335
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   524.408929: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4154910
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   525.410048: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4405582
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   525.434080: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send flow event
>> >>>>   cpumap/0/map:4-1371    [000] D..2.   525.482714: bpf_trace_printk:
>> (tc) Send flow event
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The times haven't been tweaked yet. The (5,1) is tc handle
>> major/minor, allocated by the xdp-cpumap parent.
>> >>>> I get pretty low latency between VMs; I'll set up a test with some
>> real-world data very soon.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I plan to keep hacking away, but feel free to take a peek.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Herbert
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 10:14 AM Simon Sundberg <
>> Simon.Sundberg at kau.se> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi, thanks for adding me to the conversation. Just a couple of quick
>> >>>>> notes.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, 2022-10-17 at 16:13 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >>>>> > [ Adding Simon to Cc ]
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS <libreqos at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> writes:
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > > Hey,
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > I've had some pretty good success with merging xdp-pping (
>> >>>>> > >
>> https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/blob/master/pping/pping.h )
>> >>>>> > > into xdp-cpumap-tc (
>> https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-cpumap-tc ).
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > I ported over most of the xdp-pping code, and then changed the
>> entry point
>> >>>>> > > and packet parsing code to make use of the work already done in
>> >>>>> > > xdp-cpumap-tc (it's already parsed a big chunk of the packet,
>> no need to do
>> >>>>> > > it twice). Then I switched the maps to per-cpu maps, and had to
>> pin them -
>> >>>>> > > otherwise the two tc instances don't properly share data.
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I guess the xdp-cpumap-tc ensures that the same flow is processed on
>> >>>>> the same CPU core at both ingress or egress. Otherwise, if a flow
>> may
>> >>>>> be processed by different cores on ingress and egress the per-CPU
>> maps
>> >>>>> will not really work reliably as each core will have a different
>> view
>> >>>>> on the state of the flow, if there's been a previous packet with a
>> >>>>> certain TSval from that flow etc.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Furthermore, if a flow is always processed on the same core (on both
>> >>>>> ingress and egress) I think per-CPU maps may be a bit wasteful on
>> >>>>> memory. From my understanding the keys for per-CPU maps are still
>> >>>>> shared across all CPUs, it's just that each CPU gets its own value.
>> So
>> >>>>> all CPUs will then have their own data for each flow, but it's only
>> the
>> >>>>> CPU processing the flow that will have any relevant data for the
>> flow
>> >>>>> while the remaining CPUs will just have an empty state for that
>> flow.
>> >>>>> Under the same assumption that packets within the same flow are
>> always
>> >>>>> processed on the same core there should generally not be any
>> >>>>> concurrency issues with having a global (non-per-CPU) either as
>> packets
>> >>>>> from the same flow cannot be processed concurrently then (and thus
>> no
>> >>>>> concurrent access to the same value in the map). I am however still
>> >>>>> very unclear on if there's any considerable performance impact
>> between
>> >>>>> global and per-CPU map versions if the same key is not accessed
>> >>>>> concurrently.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> > > Right now, output
>> >>>>> > > is just stubbed - I've still got to port the perfmap output
>> code. Instead,
>> >>>>> > > I'm dumping a bunch of extra data to the kernel debug pipe, so
>> I can see
>> >>>>> > > roughly what the output would look like.
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > With debug enabled and just logging I'm now getting about 4.9
>> Gbits/sec on
>> >>>>> > > single-stream iperf between two VMs (with a shaper VM in the
>> middle). :-)
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Just FYI, that "just logging" is probably the biggest source of
>> >>>>> > overhead, then. What Simon found was that sending the data from
>> kernel
>> >>>>> > to userspace is one of the most expensive bits of epping, at
>> least when
>> >>>>> > the number of data points goes up (which is does as additional
>> flows are
>> >>>>> > added).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yhea, reporting individual RTTs when there's lots of them (you may
>> get
>> >>>>> upwards of 1000 RTTs/s per flow) is not only problematic in terms of
>> >>>>> direct overhead from the tool itself, but also becomes demanding for
>> >>>>> whatever you use all those RTT samples for (i.e. need to log, parse,
>> >>>>> analyze etc. a very large amount of RTTs). One way to deal with
>> that is
>> >>>>> of course to just apply some sort of sampling (the -r/--rate-limit
>> and
>> >>>>> -R/--rtt-rate
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > > So my question: how would you prefer to receive this data? I'll
>> have to
>> >>>>> > > write a daemon that provides userspace control (periodic
>> cleanup as well as
>> >>>>> > > reading the performance stream), so the world's kinda our
>> oyster. I can
>> >>>>> > > stick to Kathie's original format (and dump it to a named pipe,
>> perhaps?),
>> >>>>> > > a condensed format that only shows what you want to use, an
>> efficient
>> >>>>> > > binary format if you feel like parsing that...
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > It would be great if we could combine efforts a bit here so we
>> don't
>> >>>>> > fork the codebase more than we have to. I.e., if "upstream"
>> epping and
>> >>>>> > whatever daemon you end up writing can agree on data format etc
>> that
>> >>>>> > would be fantastic! Added Simon to Cc to facilitate this :)
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Briefly what I've discussed before with Simon was to have the
>> ability to
>> >>>>> > aggregate the metrics in the kernel (WiP PR [0]) and have a
>> userspace
>> >>>>> > utility periodically pull them out. What we discussed was doing
>> this
>> >>>>> > using an LPM map (which is not in that PR yet). The idea would be
>> that
>> >>>>> > userspace would populate the LPM map with the keys (prefixes) they
>> >>>>> > wanted statistics for (in LibreQOS context that could be one key
>> per
>> >>>>> > customer, for instance). Epping would then do a map lookup into
>> the LPM,
>> >>>>> > and if it gets a match it would update the statistics in that map
>> entry
>> >>>>> > (keeping a histogram of latency values seen, basically). Simon's
>> PR
>> >>>>> > below uses this technique where userspace will "reset" the
>> histogram
>> >>>>> > every time it loads it by swapping out two different map entries
>> when it
>> >>>>> > does a read; this allows you to control the sampling rate from
>> >>>>> > userspace, and you'll just get the data since the last time you
>> polled.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thank's Toke for summarzing both the current state and the plan
>> going
>> >>>>> forward. I will just note that this PR (and all my other work with
>> >>>>> ePPing/BPF-PPing/XDP-PPing/I-suck-at-names-PPing) will be more or
>> less
>> >>>>> on hold for a couple of weeks right now as I'm trying to finish up a
>> >>>>> paper.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> > I was thinking that if we all can agree on the map format, then
>> your
>> >>>>> > polling daemon could be one userspace "client" for that, and the
>> epping
>> >>>>> > binary itself could be another; but we could keep compatibility
>> between
>> >>>>> > the two, so we don't duplicate effort.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Similarly, refactoring of the epping code itself so it can be
>> plugged
>> >>>>> > into the cpumap-tc code would be a good goal...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Should probably do that...at some point. In general I think it's a
>> bit
>> >>>>> of an interesting problem to think about how to chain multiple
>> XDP/tc
>> >>>>> programs together in an efficent way. Most XDP and tc programs will
>> do
>> >>>>> some amount of packet parsing and when you have many chained
>> programs
>> >>>>> parsing the same packets this obviously becomes a bit wasteful. In
>> the
>> >>>>> same time it would be nice if one didn't need to manually merge
>> >>>>> multiple programs together into a single one like this to get rid of
>> >>>>> this duplicated parsing, or at least make that process of merging
>> those
>> >>>>> programs as simple as possible.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> > -Toke
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > [0] https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/pull/59
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> När du skickar e-post till Karlstads universitet behandlar vi dina
>> personuppgifter<https://www.kau.se/gdpr>.
>> >>>>> When you send an e-mail to Karlstad University, we will process
>> your personal data<https://www.kau.se/en/gdpr>.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> LibreQoS mailing list
>> >>>> LibreQoS at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Robert Chacón
>> >>> CEO | JackRabbit Wireless LLC
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LibreQoS mailing list
>> > LibreQoS at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
>> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/libreqos/attachments/20221019/94650e44/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the LibreQoS mailing list