Reply
Emerging Member
Posts: 93
Registered: ‎10-14-2013
Kudos: 22
Solutions: 1

Traffic shaper + fq_codel

I got my first Edgemax router (ER-X) few days ago and so far I love it. I'm wondering is it possible to use traffic shaper and fq_codel at the same time? I would like to prioritize VoIP and reserve some bandwidth for it, but at the same time run fq_codel to take care of bufferbloat.

Emerging Member
Posts: 81
Registered: ‎05-21-2015
Kudos: 19
Solutions: 1

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

If you use fq_codel you pretty much don't need to do any additional traffic prioritization.  It's designed as a shaper and fair-queueing system to keep traffic moving with minimal latency.  If you install 1.7beta2 it's called smartqueue and is configurable from the gui.  i'd suggest testing it at least and see if you really need any additional QOS more than it offers.

Emerging Member
Posts: 93
Registered: ‎10-14-2013
Kudos: 22
Solutions: 1

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

I know how it works, I already use it on PfSense (codel). But pfsense let's you create traffic shapper and then utilize codel for each individual queue as well. Is that posibility?

 

I still have 1.6.6 on my ER-X and fq_codel works fine. Is there any difference between 1.6.6 and 1.7 beta?

 

SuperUser
Posts: 21,760
Registered: ‎11-20-2011
Kudos: 7893
Solutions: 233

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel


deltix wrote:

I know how it works, I already use it on PfSense (codel). But pfsense let's you create traffic shapper and then utilize codel for each individual queue as well. Is that posibility?

 

I still have 1.6.6 on my ER-X and fq_codel works fine. Is there any difference between 1.6.6 and 1.7 beta?

 


codel and fq_codel are *not* the same

 

@dtaht2



isp builder | linux sorcerer | datacenter automation conjurer | blog: blog.engineered.online
link to our slack channel on the blog
Emerging Member
Posts: 93
Registered: ‎10-14-2013
Kudos: 22
Solutions: 1

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

I know, not exactly the same, fq_codel is better, I know details, I was just referring to model in pfsense that let's you apply codel on individual queues instead of on whole interface.Or if there is posibility to have shaper and fq_codel on top of that. Is it going to work if I create shaper and enable fq_codel? Any conflict?

 

 

Emerging Member
Posts: 81
Registered: ‎05-21-2015
Kudos: 19
Solutions: 1

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

Yes, codel is not as robust as fq_codel. I think pfsense only uses codel.  fq_codel has a traffic shaper/queueing(SFQ) as a component.  So you will give up a little bandwidth to make sure no upstream buffering occurs.

 

a bit more info on them are here:

 

http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/lwn/SFQ2012/FQ-Codel.html#qq9answer

 

1.7 beta has fq_codel built into the UI so that you don't have to install anything.  You just plug in the upstream/downstream bandwidth and it will do the rest.

 

But the end result is very low latency across all apps.  So you don't need to add specific rules for each type of traffic like voip, skype, etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

Emerging Member
Posts: 81
Registered: ‎05-21-2015
Kudos: 19
Solutions: 1

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

I think it will work, but the more things that the device has to do, the lower the potential throughput is.  If your bandwidth is low, say <100mbps then it may not be an issue.  But to run fq_codel and additional shaping rules may be a bit redundant and unecessary.

 

 

Emerging Member
Posts: 93
Registered: ‎10-14-2013
Kudos: 22
Solutions: 1

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

I will give it a try. It's 1.5mb/s DS-1 line. I have 4 VoIP phones and 4 computers. I'm not affraid of ER-X not having enough resources to handle that.

 

Emerging Member
Posts: 81
Registered: ‎05-21-2015
Kudos: 19
Solutions: 1

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

actually I think the 1.5mbps is a bigger issue.  I have the ER-X running on my connection that is 180mbps down/12mbps up.  And it does great.

 

at 1.5mbps it might be hard to keep latency down.  But if it's working with pfsense today, I would imagine that with ERX/fq_codel it would work just as well.  It may require some tuning though, because small pipes need different parameters than larger pipes.

Emerging Member
Posts: 93
Registered: ‎10-14-2013
Kudos: 22
Solutions: 1

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

I'm using PfSense with 20/20 fiber. ER-X will be for remote office with DS-1. Unfortunatelly, it is remote location and that was the only service avalible (and pricey). From what I was able to find it looks like fq_codel is better then codel when it comes to low bandwidth connections. I did test it on 20/2 DSL and it works fine. For that reason I hope it will perform OK on 1.5/1.5 too.

Emerging Member
Posts: 81
Registered: ‎05-21-2015
Kudos: 19
Solutions: 1

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

you may want to search through the threads to find the best settings.  There are some different settings when your linespeed is low.  For example, at 1mbps it takes more than 5ms to transmit 1 1514byte frame.  So you have to adjust your settings a bit to allow for this.  Default settings may automatically compensate when you plug in line speed but i'm not sure.  

 

There's a thread here that covers a lot of it:

http://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX/Testing-fq-codel-in-v1-5-0/m-p/828626#M38224

 

-m

Previous Employee
Posts: 13,551
Registered: ‎06-10-2011
Kudos: 5438
Solutions: 1656
Contributions: 2

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

Yeah as ely105 said some settings can be tweaked. You might want to try the latest v1.7.0beta2 (currently available in the beta forum) which has the advanced settings in the system configuration and Web UI. Also in beta2 the "target" is automatically calculated for low-bandwidth link if it is not set.

Highlighted
Emerging Member
Posts: 81
Registered: ‎05-21-2015
Kudos: 19
Solutions: 1

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

@UBNT-ancheng, is there a concise list of the parameters that are configured automagically based on interface speed (and what they are/thresholds)?  I mentioned earlier about having them populate in the interface once applied.

 

Also, maybe this is just me, but if the UI could default to mbps, instead of kbps that would be "safer".  I plugged in 180 (cause i can't count all those zeros) and forgot to change the kbps.  Let's just say the UI was pretty slow at that point (from where I was accessing it), until i could change it to mbps.

 

thanks!

-m

 

Previous Employee
Posts: 13,551
Registered: ‎06-10-2011
Kudos: 5438
Solutions: 1656
Contributions: 2

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

ely105: Currently it's just the "target" that is adjusted automatically (as you said at low rates the default 5 ms doesn't make sense) if it's not set in the configuration. Also we have already added some of the default values to be displayed in the Web UI so those will be in the next version. Good point on the Mbps default and we should change that. Thanks for the feedback!

Ubiquiti Employee
Posts: 135
Registered: ‎07-13-2014
Kudos: 129
Solutions: 15

Re: Traffic shaper + fq_codel

ely105: More specifically, "target" and "interval" are adjusted together automatically for low bandwidth if both of them are left blank in smart queue config.

Regards,
Michael
Reply