Queue management - fq_codel implementation - Mitigate Bufferbloat

[TheTKS]

Queue management - fq_codel implementation - Mitigate Bufferbloat

Three requests:

1. Fix fq_codel implementation. See below for explanation.

2. Add to the manual how to access the support.cgi page of the interface, and explain the options and what they do.

3. Explain, somewhere, how to use together (or if not to use any at the same time as the others) the options that could help prevent bufferbloat and internet (WAN) drops. This should go into the manual, ideally, but anywhere we can easily find it would be a good start. Specifically I’m thinking about use of these options together:

• bandwidth control - WAN and individual user
• DSCP - prioritization by application or application category
• Mitigate Bufferbloat
• DSL/cable optimization
• Any other relevant options I might have missed

As I understand it, Mitigate Bufferbloat on the Surf SOHO acts on upload only, not download, at least not up to 8.1.0. Is this still true?

I’m still on firmware 8.1.0 build 4941 on the Surf SOHO MK3.

Has this been fixed in firmware 8.1.1? I will update firmware once apparent issues with it on some routers are straightened out.

I asked for answers in the second link. A hat tip to the two community members that have responded, @Mark9 and @codatory, but nobody from the company has
answered yet.

Can someone from Peplink help out further?

Refer to these threads

Need Active Queue Management for Bufferbloat (fq_codel)

Peplink, will you please respond to my 5/17/18 posting to the existing BufferBloat topic in Product Discussion. My 5/17/18 post is reproduced below. Please note that my posting below refers to several posting by others in the existing BufferBloat topic, so you may want to read that thread first. For example, others have tried to front end Peplink routers in a multi-WAN environment with other routers which have fq_codel upon which I comment. Thank you! So what about it Peplink? Is it time fo…

Enabling Mitigate Bufferbloat *and* applying the QoS options of bandwidth control and application prioritization - Surf SOHO MK3

Short version: I’m wondering about whether it is ok to freely apply bandwidth control and application prioritization when enabling Mitigate Bufferbloat, or if there is potential for conflicts. If no conflicts, is there simply no benefit to running all 3? ex. either enable Mitigate Bufferbloat or apply application prioritization. Firmware 8.1.0 build 4941 On a related note: Is the interface support page 192.168.50.1/cgi-bin/MANGA/support.cgi mentioned in the manual? I haven’t read the manual…

Thanks,

TKS

[Dave_Taht]

I do keep hoping more providers will start backporting sch_cake. It’s even more effective than htb + fq_codel and takes a few minutes to make work on any linux newer than 3.10. There’s an out of tree build for it on github.

If there’s a devkit available for this box, let me know.

For some more details on it, see: Let them run CAKE [LWN.net]

[Andrew_Williams]

+1 for cake. I’ve been using it on my cellular enabled openWRT boxes with great success. If Peplink would get on the ball with this it would be a huge win for everyone.

[Andrew_Williams]

I hope cake autorate catch some fire here someday, it would make for some killer outbound policy rules.

[Andrew_Williams]

I forgot to include some information about cake autorate, here’s a link to it in GitHub:

https://github.com/lynxthecat/cake-autorate