Joined: 03 Jan 2010 Posts: 7568 Location: YWG, Canada
Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:43 Post subject:
BrainSlayer wrote:
just in addition. i configured 32 / 8 and 32 / 32. but it only does 24 here. i dont know why. doesnt matter. this is htb+fq_codel
its that issue u already know about, ipq806x (and alpine) have bad latency and high cpu load with qos on k4.x with high speed wan usually over 120mbps, but 150mbps+ shows it well (3.18 was fine, kong builds k4.x fixed) _________________ LATEST FIRMWARE(S)
BrainSlayer wrote:
we just do it since we do not like any restrictions enforced by stupid cocaine snorting managers
Joined: 06 Jun 2006 Posts: 7463 Location: Dresden, Germany
Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 13:24 Post subject:
tatsuya46 wrote:
BrainSlayer wrote:
just in addition. i configured 32 / 8 and 32 / 32. but it only does 24 here. i dont know why. doesnt matter. this is htb+fq_codel
its that issue u already know about, ipq806x (and alpine) have bad latency and high cpu load with qos on k4.x with high speed wan usually over 120mbps, but 150mbps+ shows it well (3.18 was fine, kong builds k4.x fixed)
first my test was 4.9, second the r9000 and the ipq based devices cannot be compared. they are different as hell. the r9000 has a quadcore cpu with 1.8 ghz and 1 sfp+ port for 10 gbit. the there is a wan port for gbit and a lan port with 2 interconnected switches for 6 ports in total
what i'm asking here is about the qos settings of him. for good bufferbloat results he should give the scheduler a budged. so the link settings (up /down) is important. 95% of total traffic is usually enough. for cake 98% might already work _________________ "So you tried to use the computer and it started smoking? Sounds like a Mac to me.." - Louis Rossmann https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL_5YDRWqGE&t=60s
Joined: 21 Jan 2017 Posts: 1782 Location: Illinois Moderator
Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 16:43 Post subject:
BrainSlayer wrote:
BrainSlayer wrote:
just in addition. i configured 32 / 8 and 32 / 32. but it only does 24 here. i dont know why. doesnt matter.
its that issue u already know about, ipq806x (and alpine) have bad latency and high cpu load with qos on k4.x with high speed wan usually over 120mbps, but 150mbps+ shows it well (3.18 was fine, kong builds k4.x fixed)
first my test was 4.9, second the r9000 and the ipq based devices cannot be compared. they are different as hell. the r9000 has a quadcore cpu with 1.8 ghz and 1 sfp+ port for 10 gbit. the there is a wan port for gbit and a lan port with 2 interconnected switches for 6 ports in total
what i'm asking here is about the qos settings of him. for good bufferbloat results he should give the scheduler a budged. so the link settings (up /down) is important. 95% of total traffic is usually enough. for cake 98% might already work
When you run the tests, always choose fiber and then use the settings to adjust the count of down/up streams to be used...choosing DSL will limit the streams, no matter what you enter, based on the "type" of connection.
BS, I sent you an email with some data to look at; along with my ISP info and settings. Let me know what other info I can run concurrent to the tests to help you figure things out.
Thank you for taking the time & energy to figure this out with all of us! It feels nice to be part of this community, despite YOU doing a lot of the behind the scenes work to make it possible for us to "complain."
We all want the same thing in the end- the best firmware to eek out the most from our router/s. _________________ FORUM RULES