WG Server test with flowcache bypass

[RMerlin]

Would be interesting to see if WG is treated as a QOS managed flow or just allowed the fast path thru flowcache as an exception...

It's exempt from flowcache, based on the IP address of the client going through the tunnel. It's just a workaround really, not a fix or improvement in flowcache in any way.

 

[hancox]

It's exempt from flowcache, based on the IP address of the client going through the tunnel. It's just a workaround really, not a fix or improvement in flowcache in any way.

...which is the real disappointment here, especially on the AX86U. flowcache throttles (Adaptive) QoS too, and bypassing it here seems to hint that they're having trouble fixing it.

 

[Morris]

...which is the real disappointment here, especially on the AX86U. flowcache throttles (Adaptive) QoS too, and bypassing it here seems to hint that they're having trouble fixing it.

flowcache is a hardware feature to allow for fast packet switching. When it is enabled the hardware moves packets based on source and destination addresses. QOS requires the router code to do the work so flowcache must be disabled. There is nothing wrong with the RT-AX86u, it is operating as designed with regard to QOS.

You as the person configuring the router must make the choice of fast switching (flowcache enabled) or QOS and the limited throughput of the router's CPU. If you require QOS and your router can not keep up with your ISP link, then you need to chose to accept the limitation of the router or replace it with a much faster and more expensive router. I'm not aware of any that can do QOS on a gig link that is not 10x the cost of your router. This is entirely your choice.

 

[JGrana]

I do have to occasiorally remind myself that my AX88U is a $275 consumer router that tricks me into thinking it is much bigger - thanks to things like unbound, chrony timeserver, QoS in many forms, multiple VPN {Director, OpenVPN, WG}, dynamic WAN Failover, Diversion, etc.

 

[capncybo]

flowcache is a hardware feature to allow for fast packet switching. When it is enabled the hardware moves packets based on source and destination addresses. QOS requires the router code to do the work so flowcache must be disabled. There is nothing wrong with the RT-AX86u, it is operating as designed with regard to QOS.

You as the person configuring the router must make the choice of fast switching (flowcache enabled) or QOS and the limited throughput of the router's CPU. If you require QOS and your router can not keep up with your ISP link, then you need to chose to accept the limitation of the router or replace it with a much faster and more expensive router. I'm not aware of any that can do QOS on a gig link that is not 10x the cost of your router. This is entirely your choice.

@Morris nice explanation... but IMO this misunderstanding is going to become more & more common place as 1G ISP connections become the new normal.
And here's the rub.... most people don't really need the additional speed. Of course newer technology keeps finding uses that gobble up more & more bandwidth...
Streaming SD-Video... (No no no) You need HD-Video... hmmm maybe we do... But 4K-Video (a need... Not really).

 

[supe]

flowcache is a hardware feature to allow for fast packet switching. When it is enabled the hardware moves packets based on source and destination addresses. QOS requires the router code to do the work so flowcache must be disabled. There is nothing wrong with the RT-AX86u, it is operating as designed with regard to QOS.

Hate to keep repeating this. but there is something wrong the the AX86U though.
Enabling any QOS except adaptive throttles transfer within the LAN on the AX86U, for example transfers from my laptop to my NAS takes a hit if Cake is enabled. Note that I'm not talking about traffic to the internet, just LAN, which I constantly have to clarify.

 

[Morris]

@Morris nice explanation... but IMO this misunderstanding is going to become more & more common place as 1G ISP connections become the new normal.
And here's the rub.... most people don't really need the additional speed. Of course newer technology keeps finding uses that gobble up more & more bandwidth...
Streaming SD-Video... (No no no) You need HD-Video... hmmm maybe we do... But 4K-Video (a need... Not really).

Marketing people are very good are remoting people's savings. There are defiantly people that will benefit from a 1-Gb connection, most don't need it yet a surprisingly large number pay for it.

 

[Morris]

Hate to keep repeating this. but there is something wrong the the AX86U though.
Enabling any QOS except adaptive throttles transfer within the LAN on the AX86U, for example transfers from my laptop to my NAS takes a hit if Cake is enabled. Note that I'm not talking about traffic to the internet, just LAN, which I constantly have to clarify.

QOS has no affect on transfer speeds within my LAN. Two of the computers in our home are connected to the RT-AX86U on 1-Gb ports. The RT-AX86-U connects to my MikroTik-CRS305 at 2.5-Gb and my NAS at 10-Gb. Both of the computers backup simultaneously at .98-Gb. How is your NAS connected and what is the configuration for flow control on your NAS? This might be related: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/raptor-lake-motherboard-ethernet-flaw

 

[Tech9]

most don't need it yet a surprisingly large number pay for it

And invest in hardware for better speedtest numbers on top.

 

[supe]

QOS has no affect on transfer speeds within my LAN. Two of the computers in our home are connected to the RT-AX86U on 1-Gb ports. The RT-AX86-U connects to my MikroTik-CRS305 at 2.5-Gb and my NAS at 10-Gb. Both of the computers backup simultaneously at .98-Gb. How is your NAS connected and what is the configuration for flow control on your NAS? This might be related: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/raptor-lake-motherboard-ethernet-flaw

You seem to imply that the LAN switching to your NAS is done by the Mikrotik, and not the AX86u. My issue has been confirmed by several others. but if your setup works, good for you. My setup is basic, just a NAS connected to a a Ethernet port port on the router and my laptop on wireless. The issue with the AX86U LAN Switch.

 

[hancox]

flowcache is a hardware feature to allow for fast packet switching. When it is enabled the hardware moves packets based on source and destination addresses. QOS requires the router code to do the work so flowcache must be disabled. There is nothing wrong with the RT-AX86u, it is operating as designed with regard to QOS.

As I understand it, this is incorrect, in the case of Adaptive QOS, which is the only QOS setting which doesn't disable fc by default.

 

[Morris]

You seem to imply that the LAN switching to your NAS is done by the Mikrotik, and not the AX86u. My issue has been confirmed by several others. but if your setup works, good for you. My setup is basic, just a NAS connected to a a Ethernet port port on the router and my laptop on wireless. The issue with the AX86U LAN Switch.

No! The two computers and the link to the Mikrotik are switched by the RT-AX86u. As you talking about a wireless connected laptop, all bets are off as there are so many factors that affect wireless throughput. Some of our laptops backup at close to gigabit thruput and others don't.

Wireless is for convince, wired for speed. If you need speed, wire the hosts that need speed!

 

[Morris]

As I understand it, this is incorrect, in the case of Adaptive QOS, which is the only QOS setting which doesn't disable fc by default.

If flowcache were enabled, Adaptive QOS code would not see the traffic and would do nothing.

 

[ColinTaylor]

No! The two computers and the link to the Mikrotik are switched by the RT-AX86u. As you talking about a wireless connected laptop, all bets are off as there are so many factors that affect wireless throughput. Some of our laptops backup at close to gigabit thruput and others don't.

Wireless is for convince, wired for speed. If you need speed, wire the hosts that need speed!

As stated in previous posts this is specifically an issue with wireless to LAN transfers on the RT-AX86U. And no, it's nothing to do with the "normal" wireless problems. It's a flow cache problem (not Cake per se) and it's very easy to demonstrate.

 

[Morris]

As stated in previous posts this is specifically an issue with wireless to LAN transfers on the RT-AX86U. And no, it's nothing to do with the "normal" wireless problems. It's a flow cache problem (not Cake per se) and it's very easy to demonstrate.

If it is, it's intermittent as I don't see it on all hosts all the time

 

[ColinTaylor]

If it is, it's intermittent as I don't see it on all hosts all the time

It's 100% reproducible here. Unless you're looking for it you probably wouldn't notice that the throughput is being restricted. Or if you did you'd probably think it's the "normal" WiFi problems. The other possibility is that your router has a different hardware revision than us. There are two versions of the RT-AX86U, each with different switch chips.

 

[Morris]

It's 100% reproducible here. Unless you're looking for it you probably wouldn't notice that the throughput is being restricted. Or if you did you'd probably think it's the "normal" WiFi problems. The other possibility is that your router has a different hardware revision than us. There are two versions of the RT-AX86U, each with different switch chips.

I'm running Merlin 388.1. Dose the firmware decide witch LAN driver to load? Is there a command that will display which switch chip I have?

 

[ColinTaylor]

I'm running Merlin 388.1. Dose the firmware decide witch LAN driver to load? Is there a command that will display which switch chip I have?

The chip that changed was the one used to support the 2.5GbE port (which is tightly coupled to the 1GbE ports). It changed from a Broadcom chip to a Realtek RTL8226B.

I'm not sure how you'd tell the difference in software, perhaps the following commands:

# nvram get ext_phy_model
0
# nvram get HwVer
1.0

Anyone noticed AX86U major redesign?

I think this info is false as Merlin will know it first and will not support the newer AX86U as it does not use Broadcom anymore. Why Merlin won’t support the newer AX86U? It’s still the same system, same CPU, just some chip changes. Whether this is a cost saving measure or chip shortage...

www.snbforums.com

 

[Morris]

Thank you Colin. I have the same as you. So I'm wondering if the difference I experience and others is that my NAS traffic passes through the 2.5 Gb port and others may be on a 1-Gb port. For those experiencing the issue, it might be worth moving there NAS or server to the 2.5 Gb port and see if it helps.

 

[Tech9]

This is Wi-Fi 5 2-stream client to Ethernet NAS on my AX86U with Runner and Flow Cache disabled (Bandwidth Limiter enabled):

It's about 500Mbps in normal Wi-Fi environment with some activity on the same channels. Seems about right to me, not bad.