FlexQoS FlexQoS 1.2.4 - Flexible QoS Enhancement Script for Adaptive QoS

[Kingp1n]

I've always used fq_coldel. I've never used sfq. I haven't had any issues with fq_codel but I understand that more you add, the more maintenance that it takes.

I can try sfq and run it for a few days to see how it compares to codel. I have a family that games alot and I know fq_codel helps with latency.

I believe you mentioned in the past that you never saw a difference correct?

I wonder is gaming would be affected.

Note: Btw...I've been using the develop script and my wifi devices (streaming) having been running smoothly. Normally these devices would lag on top floor but now all is smooth (with codel). Thanks for your hardwork.

 

[maghuro]

My next question to FlexQoS users (before you ditch me for Cake): is there any reason to NOT use the fq_codel option? Does Default work better for anyone?

I’m at the point where I need to resume simplifying the interface and script. I’ve been adding and adding lately and it needs grooming.

Open to other ideas for simplification or cleanup.

The only reason to not use it is because I forget to enable it when installing FlexQos.


Seriously, make fq_codel default...

 

[dave14305]

I believe you mentioned in the past that you never saw a difference correct?

I saw no difference between htb+htb+sfq and htb+htb+fq_codel. There should be a notable difference between htb+htb+sfq (Default) and htb+fq_codel when there is competition for bandwidth.

that more you add, the more maintenance that it takes.

It really comes down to simplifying it for new users. My experiments either have to stay or go at some point, and options create confusion (look at all the posts recently about overhead).

Seriously, make fq_codel default...

You vote is noted!

 

[Treadler]

My next question to FlexQoS users (before you ditch me for Cake): is there any reason to NOT use the fq_codel option? Does Default work better for anyone?

I’m at the point where I need to resume simplifying the interface and script. I’ve been adding and adding lately and it needs grooming.

Open to other ideas for simplification or cleanup.

No reason,
fq_codel works for me.

 

[chris.at]

I'd suggest to go with fq_codel and leave sfq behind...

 

[pdc]

What would be the general reaction to moving the FlexQoS tab to the head of the Adaptive QoS tab section?

Please do! It's the only reason I go to the QOS section. And likewise, fq_codel seems like a good approach, not sure why you'd want sfq as an option.

 

[dave14305]

The only downside I see with breaking the htb+htb+sfq structure is that Adaptive QoS will create special classes for certain video streaming traffic types to allocate minimum bandwidth for the device doing the streaming. It can’t do that when I destroy that extra hierarchy. It’s not a significant trade-off and most people don’t even know it’s happening.

 

[geobernd]

I add my 'vote' to stay with fq_codel.
Works best for me

My next question to FlexQoS users (before you ditch me for Cake): is there any reason to NOT use the fq_codel option? Does Default work better for anyone?

 

[jerrytouille]

My next question to FlexQoS users (before you ditch me for Cake): is there any reason to NOT use the fq_codel option? Does Default work better for anyone?

I’m at the point where I need to resume simplifying the interface and script. I’ve been adding and adding lately and it needs grooming.

Open to other ideas for simplification or cleanup.

+1 stay with fq_codel, better if make it default for flexqos

 

[bbunge]

Well, I have to go for sfq or at least an option to choose. I have switched between sfq, codel and fq_codel since Merlin introduced the QOS options in his firmware. I even did some testing for him ages ago or so it seems. And I've found no significant difference between the three. In fact, sfq works better for me through a progression of routers (AC66U_B1, AC86U and AX86U). With my new AX86U I have the best bufferbloat readings than I've ever had on manual bandwidth settings (100/100 FIOS)

 

[Tomo]

+1 Fq_Codel

 

[JohnSmith]

I vote for 2nd Tab as well, as I use Bandwidth monitor daily watching activity going on my network.

 

[reerden]

I noticed last night when playing on my Xbox that a lot of traffic is classified as web traffic instead of gaming.

It seems Asus classifies STUN traffic as web surfing. Which is weird considering STUN is used by a lot of Microsoft applications that are latency sensitive. It's almost always VOIP (Teams/Skype) or gaming (Xbox).

I suggest adding a default rule for STUN and setting it to work-from-home, which should be the class most people have set as a high priority.

 

[dave14305]

I noticed last night when playing on my Xbox that a lot of traffic is classified as web traffic instead of gaming.

It seems Asus classifies STUN traffic as web surfing. Which is weird considering STUN is used by a lot of Microsoft applications that are latency sensitive. It's almost always VOIP (Teams/Skype) or gaming (Xbox).

I suggest adding a default rule for STUN and setting it to work-from-home, which should be the class most people have set as a high priority.

Stun is classified as Net Control in stock firmware, but the default AppDB rules to move web Surfing out of net control but also pick up STUN because its in category 14****.

You can certainly add a rule to put 1400AC wherever you like, but there is no immediate plan to add it as a default rule, especially if it’s unclear what kind of traffic ends up as STUN. You mention gaming and VoIP, and I wouldn’t want to put someone’s gaming traffic in their work from home bucket as a default.

Happy to revisit it if others test the same kind of rule and share their results/feedback.

 

[reerden]

Stun is classified as Net Control in stock firmware, but the default AppDB rules to move web Surfing out of net control but also pick up STUN because its in category 14****.

You can certainly add a rule to put 1400AC wherever you like, but there is no immediate plan to add it as a default rule, especially if it’s unclear what kind of traffic ends up as STUN. You mention gaming and VoIP, and I wouldn’t want to put someone’s gaming traffic in their work from home bucket as a default.

Happy to revisit it if others test the same kind of rule and share their results/feedback.

I've put it in the highest category for now (which is gaming for me). I think this will ensure good performance when playing games but also when I'm having a teams meeting.

It's annoying that both Teams and gaming have the same classification. I could try making STUN on other devices work from home, but that would put Xbox gaming on my laptop in the wrong category. There's no real way to differentiate them.

 

[Derek Zeitler]

I think I remember that some people had an issues when they were not getting their full connection speed with a wired connection. I have 400/20 using flex QoS and I currently only get 1/2 the speed. When I turn off QOS I then get my full connection speed but bad bufferbloat. I have an ax 86u using the latest Merlin firmware (stable). Any thoughts. Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[DanNuke86]

I've put it in the highest category for now (which is gaming for me). I think this will ensure good performance when playing games but also when I'm having a teams meeting.

It's annoying that both Teams and gaming have the same classification. I could try making STUN on other devices work from home, but that would put Xbox gaming on my laptop in the wrong category. There's no real way to differentiate them.

I'd noticed a lot of web traffic from my Xbox as well, despite having rules already for all TCP traffic from my xbox to go to gaming and all UDP traffic from my xbox to net control. I've set a rule with the mark that Dave mentioned and assigned it to the static IP for my xbox, so the rule only applies to that and gives it top priority and then any other STUN traffic can just go wherever else. Seems to be ports 80 and 443 that I may have a conflict with one of the AppDB rules that is causing this.

@dave14305 does the network protocols rule cause this? Will the IP rule I've set now over ride this?

 

[reerden]

I'd noticed a lot of web traffic from my Xbox as well, despite having rules already for all TCP traffic from my xbox to go to gaming and all UDP traffic from my xbox to net control. I've set a rule with the mark that Dave mentioned and assigned it to the static IP for my xbox, so the rule only applies to that and gives it top priority and then any other STUN traffic can just go wherever else. Seems to be ports 80 and 443 that I may have a conflict with one of the AppDB rules that is causing this.

@dave14305 does the network protocols rule cause this? Will the IP rule I've set now over ride this?

In general, TCP traffic is the game communicating with stats servers, login servers, and downloading content.

Almost all games use UDP for multiplayer traffic, so in general a game console should have all its UDP traffic in the gaming category. (there are exceptions like QUIC)

I wouldn't use net control for anything else but general networking, like DNS and NTP. That category is meant for very small packets that are vital for normal networking. And therefore should have the highest category.

 

[dave14305]

I'd noticed a lot of web traffic from my Xbox as well, despite having rules already for all TCP traffic from my xbox to go to gaming and all UDP traffic from my xbox to net control. I've set a rule with the mark that Dave mentioned and assigned it to the static IP for my xbox, so the rule only applies to that and gives it top priority and then any other STUN traffic can just go wherever else. Seems to be ports 80 and 443 that I may have a conflict with one of the AppDB rules that is causing this.

@dave14305 does the network protocols rule cause this? Will the IP rule I've set now over ride this?

Hard to say without seeing your full set of rules. Assigning traffic with an iptables rule should not let that traffic be subject to AppDB redirection.

 

[Kingp1n]

I'd noticed a lot of web traffic from my Xbox as well, despite having rules already for all TCP traffic from my xbox to go to gaming and all UDP traffic from my xbox to net control. I've set a rule with the mark that Dave mentioned and assigned it to the static IP for my xbox, so the rule only applies to that and gives it top priority and then any other STUN traffic can just go wherever else. Seems to be ports 80 and 443 that I may have a conflict with one of the AppDB rules that is causing this.

@dave14305 does the network protocols rule cause this? Will the IP rule I've set now over ride this?

How is this rule working it for your while gaming? I might have to try it out.