Jump to content
  • 1
Plyra

[Feature Request] GUI and manuel settings for Queue Management (especially with CAKE)

Question

I like my Keenetic Giga since day 1 and I'm using nearly every feature it has. So I look forward and I'm requesting one more feature from our successful development team :D

Some other routers and nearly every open source modem firmware (e.g. OpenWrt, Tomato) has some sort of GUI for packet management to fight with Bufferbloat effectively. I know we can set fq_codel and CAKE somehow with command line. Also we can use QoS for management. But in the end, both are not so effective so can you add some sort of menu to setup queue management? I'm on 3.7 Alpha 12 and even latest priority settings are not enough against Bufferbloat. Being able to setup queue management manually would be pretty helpful for gamers and it helps IPTV users for smoother online video playback.

I really appreciate any fix you can provide and I'm ready to test any build for this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
14 minutes ago, Plyra said:

I'm on 3.7 Alpha 12 and even latest priority settings are not enough against Bufferbloat

Still not enough information: how you are testing, what is your current measurable result, and what is your expectation.

Have you tried to change priorities in the `controlPanel/intelliQoS` menu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 0

Actually I did tons of test with DSLReports speed test. I tried different variations (with ntce enabled, disabled, only IntelliQoS enabled, only priority 1-2-3-...-6 for testing device connected with Cat6, IntelliQoS enabled + priorities and much more)

652904533_2021-06-1213_57_09-Speedtest-howfastisyourinternet__DSLReportsISPInformation-Chromium.png.9541a6b680bfbbcaee9fbac63a10a9c5.png

971882336_2021-06-1213_57_38-Speedtest-howfastisyourinternet__DSLReportsISPInformation-Chromium.thumb.png.0f1a51a0f77c9494260ec5ab7fee92ac.png

My ISP provides 100 Mbps for me but since it's fast ethernet I can only reach 95 Mbps which is fine for me. After tons and tons of testing (as you can see) I think my best bet is disabling every setting (therefore no IntelliQoS and default priorities).

Default settings (no speed limit, no IntelliQoS, default priorities)

822979776_2021-06-1214_30_16-Speedresultof91.7_8.21Mbps_DSLReportsISPInformation-Chromium.png.3469dbdd22a9ed43b38b71e45ca6797d.png

I tried IntelliQoS and changing priorities but they were ineffective, gave me similar results.


I got best results with limiting speed only (like 94000/8000 kbps, no IntelliQoS, default priorities) so I wildly guess that speed limiting somehow enables queue management.
1245341588_2021-06-1214_20_48-Speedresultof88.4_6.84Mbps_DSLReportsISPInformation-Chromium.png.7b3388b14ac1aaf836dc115dc9a06edb.png

I don't say these results are bad. It is fine actually. But my older garbage tier ISP modem did it better without any config (no tests since I don't own it anymore) so I expect that Keenetic can do it much better.

Edited by Plyra
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 0
9 minutes ago, Plyra said:

I don't say these results are bad. It is fine actually. But my older garbage tier ISP modem did it better without any config (no tests since I don't own it anymore) so I expect that Keenetic can do it much better.

Thanks for sharing! The QoS feature is still work in progress. Your connection type is more complicated than DSL, for example, because currently QoS requires information about your ingress speed. (DSL naturally "knows" the downlink speed.) I hope we implement the auto-ingress algorithm that is planned for 3.07.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 minutes ago, ndm said:

Your connection type is more complicated than DSL, for example, because currently QoS requires information about your ingress speed. (DSL naturally "knows" the downlink speed.) I hope we implement the auto-ingress algorithm that is planned for 3.07.

Oh, nice to hear :D What about egress then? Uplink is pretty important nowadays so I hope QoS will be able to fix it smartly.

I want to ask something, do you plan adding this kind of menu? Everyone like automatic algorithms, they help much but I'd rather manually set things. That is exactly what I want actually.
resim.png.dd629c06f1a46d81cee01b046d580b68.png.917750a1fd6ae2c022125d1e39073bdf.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 0
В 12.06.2021 в 15:13, Plyra сказал:

Oh, nice to hear :D What about egress then? Uplink is pretty important nowadays so I hope QoS will be able to fix it smartly.

I want to ask something, do you plan adding this kind of menu? Everyone like automatic algorithms, they help much but I'd rather manually set things. That is exactly what I want actually.
resim.png.dd629c06f1a46d81cee01b046d580b68.png.917750a1fd6ae2c022125d1e39073bdf.png

You can achieve the same result by enabling shaping on the Home segment. Shaper uses cake (and of course priorities) inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 hours ago, Le ecureuil said:

You can achieve the same result by enabling shaping on the Home segment.

Do I need to limit their speed to shape traffic? I upgraded to Alpha 13 today and did some tests. no speed limit + service class 1 gives me not-so-good results.
786960879_2021-06-1518_20_36-KeeneticGigaDevicelists-Chromium.png.7e8cc905791f5794a1bbdc1bfe46e805.png
680792507_2021-06-1518_20_33-49ms92.4_7.9-Chromium.png.8436064dd73e52d24cce902c7b6cbd79.png

Graphic for bufferbloat, idle latency was 50 ms and while uploading it was 186 (avg) so service classes won't help us much.
880948739_2021-06-1518_33_54-Speedresultof91.7_8.21Mbps_DSLReportsISPInformation-Chromium.png.d974e60ea00c121c49c2f71ddcbc9217.png


So, without limiting speed, we actually CAN'T achieve same results 😕

Now let's limit some speed with Shaper. No priorities, no QoS. My ISP provides 100/8 so limits are fine I guess.

1297229228_2021-06-1518_39_15-KeeneticGigaDevicelists-Chromium.png.fb85371ba0a736ecc2b04ebb63a0c2c2.png

203665109_2021-06-1518_38_14-Speedresultof89.7_7.52Mbps_DSLReportsISPInformation-Chromium.png.d209430f3cb18bd9a1eb8de3f9cdc67a.png

As you can see, we got much better results. There is nearly no difference between idle latency (49 ms) and latency (52 ms) while uploading. So I guess Shaper somehow only manages while uploading, not downloading. I tried other limits for download speed (like 90 Mbps and 85) and gave me similar results. So, without Keenetic implements a fix for Shaper to manage download speed, we CAN'T achieve same or better results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...