Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 5.6 To Bring FQ-PIE Packet Scheduler To Help Fight Bufferbloat

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 5.6 To Bring FQ-PIE Packet Scheduler To Help Fight Bufferbloat

    Phoronix: Linux 5.6 To Bring FQ-PIE Packet Scheduler To Help Fight Bufferbloat

    In addition to WireGuard being part of "net-next" as the networking subsystem material targeting the upcoming Linux 5.6 cycle, there is another big last minute addition to the networking space: the Flow Queue PIE packet scheduler has been merged...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...E-Packet-Sched

  • #2
    For my wireless clients I use:

    net.core.default_qdisc=fq
    net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control = bbr

    and fq_codel (codel) is better suited for router.


    Is fq-pie better performant for either?

    Comment


    • #3
      How suitable it is to home gateways? The comparisons over at https://fq-pie.herokuapp.com/ suggests it's better than fq-codel and pie in both fairness and performance... But it says nothing about the RAM requirement aside from the 32MB default for total queues mentioned in the commit so how does it really compare to cake under real world conditions?

      Comment


      • #4
        Michael Could we have a congestion control comparison as one of your next diligent investigations? (please )

        Comment


        • #5
          I had pretty amazing results with cake.
          I prefer it over fq_codel and it is now part of main line since 4.19. I always had to compile it out of tree before.

          https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Cake/

          It has been running reliably for years on an Orange pi zero with 256MB RAM.

          We have ADSL with 1Mb/s up and 10Mb/s down link speed at the place where I work.

          In the past the internet would just grind to a halt when the Apple devices started cloud syncing.
          They would totally swamp the outgoing bandwidth.
          Now nobody notices when an Apple device is put on charge
          Last edited by Raka555; 01-23-2020, 07:23 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Linux_Chemist View Post
            Michael Could we have a congestion control comparison as one of your next diligent investigations? (please )
            How would you go about testing that? do you want everyone with the same latency? or with bursty access to bandwidth when you have some hogs? genuinely curious

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by c117152 View Post
              How suitable it is to home gateways? The comparisons over at https://fq-pie.herokuapp.com/ suggests it's better than fq-codel and pie in both fairness and performance... But it says nothing about the RAM requirement aside from the 32MB default for total queues mentioned in the commit so how does it really compare to cake under real world conditions?
              Probably better than fq-codel.

              The point of PIE vs CoDel is lower RAM usage. In OpenWrt, fq-codel is patched to use less RAM. This might be a better fit there.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by c117152 View Post
                How suitable it is to home gateways? The comparisons over at https://fq-pie.herokuapp.com/ suggests it's better than fq-codel and pie in both fairness and performance... But it says nothing about the RAM requirement aside from the 32MB default for total queues mentioned in the commit so how does it really compare to cake under real world conditions?
                it is worth mentioning that devices with 32MB of RAM are on their last legs in projects like OpenWrt, and that now the bare minimum for normal operation is 64MB, with most new decent devices have 128-256MB, and high-end ones having 512MB.

                THat said, anyone wanting to NAT more than 200MBit/s is usually recommended to buy/use x86 hardware anyway.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mangix View Post
                  fq-codel is patched to use less RAM. This might be a better fit there.
                  Good to know. Hopefully they'll be able to get FQ-PIE working on low RAM too.

                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post

                  it is worth mentioning that devices with 32MB of RAM are on their last legs in projects like OpenWrt, and that now the bare minimum for normal operation is 64MB, with most new decent devices have 128-256MB, and high-end ones having 512MB.

                  THat said, anyone wanting to NAT more than 200MBit/s is usually recommended to buy/use x86 hardware anyway.
                  That's just the WPA3 and packet inspection requirements from what I understood. I think it will be possible to run OpenWrt with those turned off just fine so long as you have 8-16MB flash and know your way around the image builder. Well, I hope...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The OpenWrt issue with 4MB has to do with using newer kernels. For those devices, DD-WRT is a better bet (still on kernel 3.10).

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X