Qualcomm StreamBoost

[RMHC]

Wondering what kinds of experiences folks have had with the Qualcomm StreamBoost QOS built into some of the QCA-based Netgear routers.

Looking around the web, it looks like QCA introduced StreamBoost back in 2013. It got lots of press then, but there's really nothing very current to be found in reviews or otherwise.

I've played around with turning it on and off on my R7800. Predictably, though, since I don't really have any particular issues that need addressing, I haven't seen any difference either way.

I'm still curious as to what other users have found.

 

[Razor512]

It seems to largely be a set of premade L7 QOS rules.

It is hard to tell if it is working on a faster connection, though in more contrived tests where I intentionally start a bunch of downloads, then stream a 4k video, r download a few torrents, then start a bunch of downloads, and it does work immediately throttle traffic like torrents, and give it to regular downloads, and throttle both to give bandwidth to traffic from services like youtube and various other streaming services.

I currently use verizon fios, and overall it does work, but only during times when the connection is saturated.

Sadly, they do not provide details about every service it covers, as well as how it prioritizes each. The database also was not updated since June 2016.

 

[Killhippie]

The database also was not updated since June 2016.

I asked about this and @NETGEAR Guy said they wanted to know what's changed since the last update basically...I thought that was the point of the database uploads I have enabled. No idea what's going on but its time it should be updated. Netgear are quite useless at supporting their routers really.

 

[Nullity]

The only thing I know about Streamboost is that it makes use of fq_codel, so that's pretty neat.

 

[Csection]

The only thing I know about Streamboost is that it makes use of fq_codel, so that's pretty neat.

It may be based on fq_codel, but it doesn't work as well on my R7800 as the one on my RT-3100.
I get a lot of "Buffer_Bloat" with the R7800, not with my Asus RT-3100.

 

[Killhippie]

It may be based on fq_codel, but it doesn't work as well on my R7800 as the one on my RT-3100.
I get a lot of "Buffer_Bloat" with the R7800, not with my Asus RT-3100.

Oddly I get the opposite, my Buffer bloat with it on is A Downstream and A upstream, without it its B and C respectively. Your Asus does not have Streamboost because its a Broadcom based unit. Have you let the QoS on the R7800 define itself by the rules from the very old cloud update from June 2016, or have you done it manually? Its best to let it do its own thing and not fiddle, then I find it pretty much takes care of itself.

 

[Csection]

Oddly I get the opposite, my Buffer bloat with it on is A Downstream and A upstream, without it its B and C respectively. Your Asus does not have Streamboost because its a Broadcom based unit. Have you let the QoS on the R7800 define itself by the rules from the very old cloud update from June 2016, or have you done it manually? Its best to let it do its own thing and not fiddle, then I find it pretty much takes care of itself.

I'm using the R7800 in bridge mode at the moment. So! I cannot answer that right now.
When it was in router mode. I just used the default settings. I did throttle it back a few times to get the "Buffer-Bloat" down, but it had to be throttled way back.
The obvious difference between you and I is that we are using different ISPs.
Mine must not be capping the line at all.

 

[Killhippie]

I'm using the R7800 in bridge mode at the moment. So! I cannot answer that right now.
When it was in router mode. I just used the default settings. I did throttle it back a few times to get the "Buffer-Bloat" down, but it had to be throttled way back.
The obvious difference between you and I is that we are using different ISPs.
Mine must not be capping the line at all.

My ISP does not cap throttle or block ports.

 

[Csection]

I'm sorry!
I take back what I said.
I think they all block some things or there would not be any need for different levels of support.

 

[Razor512]

Overall, it does work well for most tasks, and from my use, it works better than the QOS in dd-wrt, mainly from it being able to prioritize traffic while not having strange priority tiers where some things will be limited to 80% of the max throughput. So far, it seems that all traffic can hit 100% while higher priority tasks can get the throughput they need.

While it is on the side of offering too little control, especially considering that users cannot add custom rules on top of the premade ones, from a behavior standpoint, and UX standpoint, it just works in most situations, while on the other hand, many QOS rules shared on various forums for firmware such as dd-wrt, will often make things worse for some users if they are unable to further tweak things to better suit their needs.

Sadly the one downside all of these QOS functions have, is you cannot exempt certain devices on the network from the QOS and even being tracked, thus for intertnet connections where the WAN speed can change, for example, verizon fios is very consistent on the WAN side, thus QOS works especially well, up until you use any on demand content, as verizon increased the WAN throughput to offset what is used by the STB, e.g., HD stream may pull 30+Mbps , but it will not lower your speedtest.net results, since they basically increase the WAN throughput by 30+Mbps.
But if QOS is enabled, then your overall throughput drops since it also caps the speed.
In such a situation, you wither have to disable QOS, or hope that netgear can add a way to 100% exempt certain devices from all things QOS.

 

[Killhippie]

I'm sorry!
I take back what I said.
I think they all block some things or there would not be any need for different levels of support.

Certain smaller ISP's don't block of throttle, like IDNet and AAISP in the UK for instance, but they are small niche providers that cost a bit more but are worth it. I use IDNet myself.