Is it possible to do bandwidth limited and adaptive QoS at the same time ?

[medwatt]

This is a feature that is available on Tomato firmware. Is it possible to limit a particular IP to a certain bandwidth while adaptive QoS is also enabled ? This is the only feature I seem to miss on Asus-Merlin.

 

[tsunami2311]

no, just like traditional qos and bandwidth limiting can be done. i ask about similar feature once before i think i was told unless asus does it it not gona happen.

 

[FreshJR]

This is a feature that is available on Tomato firmware. Is it possible to limit a particular IP to a certain bandwidth while adaptive QoS is also enabled ? This is the only feature I seem to miss on Asus-Merlin.

It's possible. Not easiest to setup but possible.

After I update my qos script to follow merlins recommended install procedure I will look into your request.

What ip range are you interested in.

 

[medwatt]

It's possible. Not easiest to setup but possible.

After I update my qos script to follow merlins recommended install procedure I will look into your request.

What ip range are you interested in.

Say from 192.168.6.20 to 192.168.6.40.

 

[FreshJR]

Say from 192.168.6.20 to 192.168.6.40.

I'll try get around to it this weekend.

 

[medwatt]

I'll try get around to it this weekend.

Take all the time you want.

 

[medwatt]

Since this guy has taken a indefinite leave of absence, does someone know how to do bandwidth limiting when adaptive QoS is enabled ?

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

Since this guy has taken a indefinite leave of absence, does someone know how to do bandwidth limiting when adaptive QoS is enabled ?

Unfortunately the label "Adaptive QOS" refers to the Asus routers simply prioritizing certain kinds of traffic without doing any bandwidth limiting/bufferbloat control for any traffic at speeds below 1000 megabits per second.

You can think of the QOS options being

1. No QOS
2. Traffic prioritization for certain kinds of communication, with no speed-limiting for any connection slower than a gigabit per second. That is achieved by selecting "Adaptive QOS"
3. Traffic prioritization plus speed-limiting for bufferbloat control. This is achieved by selecting and manually setting upload and download speed limits.

My own experience is that on an RT-AC68u the manual speed limits and QOS work fine for the case of cable modems supplying 100meg down and 12megabits up. That is to say am getting three "A" marks from DSL Reports speed test, for quality, bufferbloat etc. Huge improvements compared to no QOS when there are 1.5 second service pauses for example.

And there is a not-yet-widely-released improvement RMerlin is working on that makes things even a bit better, when you set manual speed limits. A *bit* more speed, a *bit* less packet loss. But the current version 66_4 works plenty well, have gone back to it after playing with the experimental QOS version and will wait for its fully debugged release in the somewhat near future.

 

[medwatt]

1. No QOS
2. Traffic prioritization for certain kinds of communication, with no speed-limiting for any connection slower than a gigabit per second. That is achieved by selecting "Adaptive QOS"
3. Traffic prioritization plus speed-limiting for bufferbloat control. This is achieved by selecting and manually setting upload and download speed limits.

What I'm looking forward to implement is option no. 3. I, unfortunately, only have a 10Mbits connection, which I'm generously sharing with a neighbor who downloads like a madman. Adaptive QoS is currently enabled with file downloading being the least prioritised traffic. However, it doesn't seem to respond quickly to requests for more prioritised traffic when someone is using the entire bandwidth for downloading. What I'd really like to do is limit the download speeds of all IPs in a certain range to something like 5Mbits while adaptive QoS is still enabled. Is this possible ?

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

What I'm looking forward to implement is option no. 3. I, unfortunately, only have a 10Mbits connection, which I'm generously sharing with a neighbor who downloads like a madman. Adaptive QoS is currently enabled with file downloading being the least prioritised traffic. However, it doesn't seem to respond quickly to requests for more prioritised traffic when someone is using the entire bandwidth for downloading. What I'd really like to do is limit the download speeds of all IPs in a certain range to something like 5Mbits while adaptive QoS is still enabled. Is this possible ?

Remember that "Adaptive QOS" means no bandwidth limiting or bufferbloat control at all.

A general recommendation is to prioritize "Web surfing" and you will probably be fine with skipping Adaptive QOS (since you know your physical max down/up speeds) and instead setting up traditional QOS with a manual download limit of 10 Mbits, and an accurate upload limit (what is it in your case, perhaps 1 or 2 MBits?) as well.

It is much less annoying to have bulk downloads be paused while someone loads a web page than it is to have a web page pause while someone does a bulk download. Also video streaming services already have buffering worked into the system so that they tend not to be so finicky anyways. So start with setting browsing web pages as the highest priority traffice.

 

[Csection]

I am currently using bandwidth-limited on firmware 66_4. I get good buffer-bloat control with manually setting my d/l -u/l speeds.
I noticed when I turned off traffic monitor my pc speed test increased to full, but buffer-bloat went up as well.
I mainly want to try control one or two of the other devices on my network that use torrents and streaming of music so that web browsing is the most prominent feature.
Do you think I would be better off using Adaptive mode instead of Bandwidth-Limited?
My d/l speed is 60mghz which caps at about 71. U/l speed is 6 which caps at 8-9.

 

[Deleted member 48827]

Adaptive QOS, Traditional QOS, and Bandwidth Limiter are mutually exclusive. If all you need to do is limit bandwidth of particular clients, the bandwidth limiter seems to work pretty well. In addition to limiting bandwidth on specific client ip addresses, the bandwidth limiter lets you prioritize clients by dragging and dropping the priority level buttons to the clients for which you have set up bandwidth limitations. I'm using the bandwidth limiter with fq_codel to limit bandwidth on various clients and to prioritize VOIP boxes. For my setup it works better than adaptive QOS or traditional QOS, but your situation may be different.

If you need to prioritize by traffic type, then you will have to use adaptive or traditional QOS, but they cannot be combined with the bandwidth limiter. Traditional QOS and adaptive QOS seem to broken in various ways depending upon your setup and whether or not the router is functioning as a VPN client. The best solution for your specific setup will need to be determined by testing and comparing adaptive QOS, traditional QOS, and the bandwidth limiter.

 

[Csection]

Adaptive QOS, Traditional QOS, and Bandwidth Limiter are mutually exclusive. If all you need to do is limit bandwidth of particular clients, the bandwidth limiter seems to work pretty well. In addition to limiting bandwidth on specific client ip addresses, the bandwidth limiter lets you prioritize clients by dragging and dropping the priority level buttons to the clients for which you have set up bandwidth limitations. I'm using the bandwidth limiter with fq_codel to limit bandwidth on various clients and to prioritize VOIP boxes. For my setup it works better than adaptive QOS or traditional QOS, but your situation may be different.

If you need to prioritize by traffic type, then you will have to use adaptive or traditional QOS, but they cannot be combined with the bandwidth limiter. Traditional QOS and adaptive QOS seem to broken in various ways depending upon your setup and whether or not the router is functioning as a VPN client. The best solution for your specific setup will need to be determined by testing and comparing adaptive QOS, traditional QOS, and the bandwidth limiter.

I appreciate the response and the tip.
Do you think the fq_codel works better for buffer-bloat than the sfq?
I believe one of the guros on here had stated that sfq worked just as good as fq_codel, but that was a while ago and I can't remember the exact response(Old age! I guess.)

 

[anotherengineer]

I appreciate the response and the tip.
Do you think the fq_codel works better for buffer-bloat than the sfq?
I believe one of the guros on here had stated that sfq worked just as good as fq_codel, but that was a while ago and I can't remember the exact response(Old age! I guess.)

https://www.snbforums.com/threads/b...ta-is-now-available.39854/page-12#post-334354
Someone posted some tests.

 

[Vexira]

I appreciate the response and the tip.
Do you think the fq_codel works better for buffer-bloat than the sfq?
I believe one of the guros on here had stated that sfq worked just as good as fq_codel, but that was a while ago and I can't remember the exact response(Old age! I guess.)

i found personally in my tests that fq-codel makes qos more resposive and lowers my latency in high traffic senarios.

 

[Deleted member 48827]

I appreciate the response and the tip.
Do you think the fq_codel works better for buffer-bloat than the sfq?

It should if it's working as designed. Testing bufferbloat using fq_codel with the bandwidth limiter yields A or A+ ratings at DSL Reports for me. Traditional QOS has been broken for my setup, so can't comment on fq_codel there. Will be interesting to try Merlin's new implementation of fq_codel with adaptive QOS. Thanks Merlin!

 

[Csection]

https://www.snbforums.com/threads/b...ta-is-now-available.39854/page-12#post-334354
Someone posted some tests.

Thanks for that!

 

[Csection]

It should if it's working as designed. Testing bufferbloat using fq_codel with the bandwidth limiter yields A or A+ ratings at DSL Reports for me. Traditional QOS has been broken for my setup, so can't comment on fq_codel there. Will be interesting to try Merlin's new implementation of fq_codel with adaptive QOS. Thanks Merlin!

Yes. It will be quite interesting. I will wait though to implement it till it's out of beta unless something happens to make me have to reload firmware.

 

[Csection]

i found personally in my tests that fq-codel makes qos more resposive and lowers my latency in high traffic senarios.

I think I'm going to try it again! I original had it working, but changed to sfq. It seemed more stable to me.

 

[Vexira]

I think I'm going to try it again! I original had it working, but changed to sfq. It seemed more stable to me.

never noticed any stablity though im wating for fresh to update his script