Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Weaver]

I'm still not too convinced about doing QoS at your router on the downstream, it seems a bit late by the time the traffic has already reached your router.

Surely this has to be correct, You need to do QoS at each hop, as it can be mucked up effectively at any stage if you're sufficiently unlucky.

[Chrysalis]

Most people think only the sender can manipulate how fast data is sent, they forget the receiver controls the receive window.

e.g. use a ftp client that can set the receive window, set it something small like 4k and watch your tiny download speeds

For this reason a cheap and easy method of QoS can be to disable auto tcp tuning on vista+, which caps the receive window to 64k.  That will generally give you much better latency whilst downloading on that windows client although it will also cap speeds when the latency is high enough from the server.

Auto tuning on highlyrestricted caps it to 256k, I used to run like that for quite a long while as it still allows highish speeds on latency ranges up to about 100-150ms.

Restricted and normal will cap it at 2mb, experimental raises the cap to 16mb.

[Weaver]

Most people think only the sender can manipulate how fast data is sent, they forget the receiver controls the receive window.

Indeed. Good point. But only of course assuming that there are no protocols other than TCP.

[Chrysalis]

Yeah with UDP the rules change, but there is a way with UDP because on a torrent client you can set a downspeed limit which does work on UDP traffic.

[richb-hanover]

@richb-hanover typo in that url back there btw

Its good that you are able to fix problems using the right sw design in your own router. Was the bloat problem located right inside your openwrt device or further upstream? I'm not understanding.

@Weaver - thanks for catching the typo - it should be www.dslreports.com/speedtest

re: Where's the bloat? In 2015, I operate under these assumptions:
- your connection to your ISP is the bottleneck link, and
- your router has bufferbloat, unless you use something like fq_codel or PIE (in Docsis 3.1 cable modems) to prevent it.

So, fixing bufferbloat in your own router is always a good strategy.

That leaves aside the question of whether your ISP (or their providers) has congestion/bloat. If you're still seeing big latency at certain times of the day (after debloating your own router), then you need to complain to your ISP.

[kitz]

I cant recall for certain, but I thought that in days of old at least http was supposed to be prioritised over ICMP.   Ive seen times where certain routers would show a slight increase in latency, but since all would be fine again at a later hop, I took this as a sign that ping was given a lesser priority.

>> sky my pings improved massively during downloading,

One thing I wont disagree with is that Sky has better peering/transit points

[GigabitEthernet]

I find TalkTalk also has very good peering.

[Chrysalis]

kitz you may have misunderstood what I meant.

I dont mean the ping times to destination servers.

I mean how much my latency increases whilst I am downloading, so in other words how much it affects other activities whilst I am downloading.  Plusnet's QoS is supposed to improve that but I found it actually made things worse.