Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
mke
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:37 am

fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:55 am

Hi, just wanted to start another topic for this now that beta is out.

Will there be core or extra packages for modern queuing libraries like fq_codel or cake now that the kernel has been updated?

I've used both the above on an edgerouter x as a soho user with a highly asymmetrical line and they work flawlessly, simply set and forget.

The only way I could get a stable qos set up on routeros with queue trees and sfq was to tune my uploads to well below 50%. With fq_codel / cake close to 95% works no worries.
 
nkourtzis
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:56 am
Location: Greece

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:31 am

+1 for cake. It is more advanced than fq_codel + htb. But it will require more work, to convert the queues from htb to the cake internal shaper.
Passionate about networks
Enthusiastic about Mikrotik
MTCNA | MTCRE | MTCINE

No trees were killed to send this message,
but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
 
santyx32
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:03 am

+1000 fq_codel/cake/fq_codel_fast needs less reserved bandwidth to deal with bufferbloat
 
mducharme
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1127
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Sat Oct 26, 2019 2:13 am

I agree with this too, but first I want to see their current feature set stabilized. The sooner that happens, the sooner that they can release v7 and people can start using it in production. New features like this can be added easily later. If they try and add all new features that have been requested in the last several years into the first release of v7 it will take forever until it is released. I would rather see v7 stable release in 4 months than wait 7-8 months for v7 stable release with fq_codel or cake.
 
hci
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:10 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:42 pm

+1

CoDel etc. are badly needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoDel
 
brotherdust
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:31 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:42 pm

These features are already present in the kernel they chose to use for v7. What needs to be done is to "plumb" it into RouterOS and Winbox. Actually, there's MANY features in newer kernels that overlap with old v6 features that Mikrotik had to implement themselves. Depending on whether they want to keep their custom implementation or not, I imagine much of the work in v7 is removing Mikrotik implementations and using native kernel features. I expect it cake and fq_codel will become available in time. =) Be patient! At least they have STARTED on v7.
 
User avatar
Steveocee
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:09 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:26 pm

+1 for FQ_Codel I really want this feature in RouterOS. It is probably one of the only reasons why I look outside of the MikroTik product range.
Steve "Steveocee" Carter
PC Gamer, Airsofter, MikroTik Nerd
My Website - My MikroTik Tutorials
 
User avatar
skylark
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:55 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:15 am

Fq_codel implementation would be a great improvement. Of course we cannot promise anything about new features, but your requests are noted!
 
User avatar
Chupaka
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 8511
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:15 pm
Location: Minsk, Belarus
Contact:

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:40 pm

🤞
Russian-speaking forum: https://forum.mikrotik.by/. Welcome!

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

MikroTik. Your life. Your routing.
 
UpRunTech
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:11 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:47 pm

Well, if you use PCQ you have some knobs to twiddle. I have improved ADSL2+ responsiveness with PCQ in simple queues by making the buffers smaller than the default (which otherwise seem to work well with 50+MBit speeds). For example on an ADSL2 annex m line with max-limit=1400k/16500k these queues keep web browsing snappy enough even when the upload (especially) and downloads are busy.

/queue type
add kind=pcq name=pcq-upload-adsl pcq-classifier=src-address,src-port \
pcq-limit=2KiB pcq-total-limit=1000KiB
add kind=pcq name=pcq-download-adsl pcq-classifier=dst-address,dst-port \
pcq-limit=20KiB

From what I can tell fq-codel has some insight (because it's in the kernel) into how quickly data is moving through each tracked connection and can adjust the buffers accordingly to mimimise the time they hang around. With PCQ you can adjust the buffer sizes but I can't think of a way you could even use a script to adjust them dynamically.

The adhoc way to set this up is:
  • Set the queue max-limits to 90-95% of your measured saturated bit rate (using speed test for instance and use the peak values you see in the traffic plots in Winbox not what Speedtest says).
  • Adjust your pcq-limits downwards incrementally until you notice the responsiveness or pings get acceptable when the upload and downloads are saturated.
 
ivicask
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:40 pm
Location: Croatia, Zagreb

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:59 pm

Well, if you use PCQ you have some knobs to twiddle. I have improved ADSL2+ responsiveness with PCQ in simple queues by making the buffers smaller than the default (which otherwise seem to work well with 50+MBit speeds). For example on an ADSL2 annex m line with max-limit=1400k/16500k these queues keep web browsing snappy enough even when the upload (especially) and downloads are busy.

/queue type
add kind=pcq name=pcq-upload-adsl pcq-classifier=src-address,src-port \
pcq-limit=2KiB pcq-total-limit=1000KiB
add kind=pcq name=pcq-download-adsl pcq-classifier=dst-address,dst-port \
pcq-limit=20KiB

From what I can tell fq-codel has some insight (because it's in the kernel) into how quickly data is moving through each tracked connection and can adjust the buffers accordingly to mimimise the time they hang around. With PCQ you can adjust the buffer sizes but I can't think of a way you could even use a script to adjust them dynamically.

The adhoc way to set this up is:
  • Set the queue max-limits to 90-95% of your measured saturated bit rate (using speed test for instance and use the peak values you see in the traffic plots in Winbox not what Speedtest says).
  • Adjust your pcq-limits downwards incrementally until you notice the responsiveness or pings get acceptable when the upload and downloads are saturated.
Sounds good, doesnt work.
 
OutcomeTech
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:24 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:25 pm

+1 for fq_codel and/or CAKE in ROS v7, as soon as reasonably possible. Thank you for listening!
 
UpRunTech
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:11 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:36 am

Sounds good, doesnt work.
Did you even try it? It the modified PCQ improved my ADSL2 connection when I had it, I am using it still to good effect one some sites stuck with ADSL2 and someone on IRC has just used it with success on a 3M/512K connection.
 
Binser
newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:50 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:12 pm

+1 for fq_codel/cake
 
Note
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:39 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:05 pm

plus 1000 for all of that stuff that will make our life better. Mikrotik plz stop all other and focus on that........ only.
 
PtDragon
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:52 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:52 am

I would love to see:
CoDel
FQ_CoDel
Cake
Pie
FQ_Pie
and every other complete implementation of queues.
Those will not take much space but will help a lot with keeping buffers low.
CCR1036-12G-4S +6x100Mbit ^_^
 
santyx32
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:37 pm

Well, if you use PCQ you have some knobs to twiddle. I have improved ADSL2+ responsiveness with PCQ in simple queues by making the buffers smaller than the default (which otherwise seem to work well with 50+MBit speeds). For example on an ADSL2 annex m line with max-limit=1400k/16500k these queues keep web browsing snappy enough even when the upload (especially) and downloads are busy.

/queue type
add kind=pcq name=pcq-upload-adsl pcq-classifier=src-address,src-port \
pcq-limit=2KiB pcq-total-limit=1000KiB
add kind=pcq name=pcq-download-adsl pcq-classifier=dst-address,dst-port \
pcq-limit=20KiB

From what I can tell fq-codel has some insight (because it's in the kernel) into how quickly data is moving through each tracked connection and can adjust the buffers accordingly to mimimise the time they hang around. With PCQ you can adjust the buffer sizes but I can't think of a way you could even use a script to adjust them dynamically.

The adhoc way to set this up is:
  • Set the queue max-limits to 90-95% of your measured saturated bit rate (using speed test for instance and use the peak values you see in the traffic plots in Winbox not what Speedtest says).
  • Adjust your pcq-limits downwards incrementally until you notice the responsiveness or pings get acceptable when the upload and downloads are saturated.
Sounds good, doesnt work.
I use a PCQ queue tree to keep my bufferbloat under load between 20-100ms compared to 300-1000ms without it. In the past I used a DD-WRT router with CAKE and it kept the bufferbloat at 30ms losing only 3mbps compared to 8mbps using PCQ.

PD 1: I use queue tree instead of simple queues because I have multiple bridge interfaces for guests and IOT.
PD 2: I have 97/72mbps fiber but my ISP think bufferbloat is an imaginary problem that only exists in my mind and everything is fine on their side :lol: .
 
dtaht
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:46 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:59 am

I do also keep hoping for fq_codel or cake in miktrotik. However, it's not an "or" choice so much, but an informed one.

Wifi: fq_codel for 3 wifi chipsets (mt76, ath9k, and ath10k) have existed now for a couple years ( https://lwn.net/Articles/705884/ ) however a key feature for the ath10k (and hopefully a few other chipsets we know of) ("airtime queue limits") only just landed in mainline after baking in google's wifi and chromebooks for a few years ( http://flent-newark.bufferbloat.net/~d/ ... erface.pdf ). This implementation lives in the mac80211 layer of the kernel,
and is not a qdisc, per se. It was our hope that the techniques we created and documented for this implementation would make it into vastly more wifi, 5g, and ethernet over powerline designs.

elsewhere:

fq_codel is lightweight and runs well at "line rate" on ethernet, wifi, - pretty much everything - , and there are few manufacturers that have offloaded it into the ethernet or wifi firmware itself at this point. fq_codel (rfc8290) is pretty much the default on most linuxes now, and also is on all of apples products. Some form of restricting the buffering the lowest level firmware (as per linux's BQL or now, AQL) is also needed, and more than a few manufacturers and users have turned fq_codel on with hundreds of ms of buffering still stuck in the driver itself, expecting a better result. BQL is bog-standard in linux now, supporting - I've lost track - 50+? ethernet drivers - but not necessarily the ones mikrotik uses. Adding BQL to an ethernet driver is about 6 lines of code....

as for fq_pie, pie, codel, etc. In general we don't recommend codel be run standalone. If you want to construct a sfq + codel thing, ok... but seriously, use fq_codel even with that.

I'm not a one trick pony - I'd like there to be a low latency high speed and bufferbloat-free internet for everyone - I've long supported development of pie, also. It is arguably (so long as ecn is disabled) a better single queue AQM than codel is. pie is lighter weight than fq_codel is, also, but doesn't achieve anywhere near the same queue depth (16ms) that codel can (5ms). Pie keeps improving, with lots of new stuff landing in more recent kernels, including fq_pie, which just landed in linux 5.5. Some manufacturers (cough, cablemodems) have found it difficult to implement fq_codel in their devices, and hopefully fq_pie will prove a viable alternative. I'd really like some independent benchmarking of fq_pie vs cake and fq_codel, not just at line rate but in shaped modes. Cake in particular has docsis framing support, which the cable industry has thus far tried to ignore....

as for cake... well, after 5 years of user driven development, it was mainlined into linux 4.19, and the out of tree build for it goes back as far as 3.10. By default cake is about 2.5x more cpu intensive than fq_codel is, but it does a lot more - host + flow fairness, even through nat, ack-filtering, a better codel-like algorithm, etc. I like to think it's currently the gold standard for sqm-software shaping, but again, independent benchmarks would be just great. cake is also our research vehicle for even more improvements in sqm designs. Try it at line rate as a shaper if you can spare the cpu, but be prepared to fall back to a simpler htb + fq_codel shaper if you can't. Cake's biggest objective was to be easy to configure, and only takes one line of tc code to enable on egress, 3 on ingress, unlike the sqm-scripts or more complicated things.... and some more details can be had at the paper, here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.07617.pdf

I think all these algorithms would be of value to mikrotik's customer base and the bufferbloat.net folk and mailing lists are always willing to help. Let me leave you with a laugh though, in my recent talk at linux.conf.au I used people, as packets, to try and explain tcp's behaviors better and the value of these algorthms.

https://blog.apnic.net/2020/01/22/buffe ... -over-yet/

somewhere on these threads fq_codel_fast was mentioned... that's an experimental version, with experimental "SCE" ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-tsvwg-sce-01 )support, and I would not be in favor of mikrotik shipping that. There is a competing standards attempt, called L4S, that works differently, and I really don't know where that's going to go at this point. fq_codel_fast without that feature does benchmark out at about 5% faster than fq_codel presently does, but that's pretty trivial in the scheme of things.

In summary - ship fq_codel for wifi, make sure you have BQL and AQL support underneath, ship fq_codel and cake, and feel free to play with fq_pie and pie. I look forward verymuch to playing with mikrotik's implementations one day soon.
 
ivantirado
just joined
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 4:58 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:36 am

This is the way.
 
User avatar
IPANetEngineer
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:46 am
Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Contact:

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:09 pm

This is the way.
Indeed :lol:

It would be nice to be able to run either fq_codel or cake in RouterOS for better shaping options. Please consider adding this MikroTik.
Global - MikroTik Support & Consulting - English | Español | Serbian | Danish +1 855-645-7684
https://iparchitechs.com/ecosystem/mikr ... consulting mikrotiksupport@iparchitechs.com
 
HzMeister
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:48 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:39 am

Cake would be awesome in v7. I just did some testing with openwrt and it performed surprisingly well.

I can't imagine why they wouldn't include it in v7 since most of the hard work is already done and openly available...
Last edited by HzMeister on Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
mke
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:37 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:17 am

Wow everyone dtaht is here, and what an amazing response!!!

If you don't know now you know... https://github.com/dtaht

Please Tik admins read the above and reach out!

And Dave, thanks for so much for all your efforts.
 
User avatar
Steveocee
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:09 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:50 am

Gentle nudge.
I need a new router, choice is 4011 or ER4, one has some features I need and the other has SQM. Please make my decision easier!
Steve "Steveocee" Carter
PC Gamer, Airsofter, MikroTik Nerd
My Website - My MikroTik Tutorials
 
chrismal
just joined
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:40 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Mar 26, 2020 10:16 pm

Gentle nudge.
I need a new router, choice is 4011 or ER4, one has some features I need and the other has SQM. Please make my decision easier!
I have the same situation.
Another Vote for SQM
 
i4ko
just joined
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:23 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:11 am

-1
I have never had good experience with SQM as implemented in openwrt or ubnt ER. Practically most of the time SQM does hurt performance of TCP connections significantly. Mostly it does is introduce packet loss, and a lot of it. Now, the traffic I deal with is idiotic - sub-second bursts in the order of 12-25mb, then 8-9 seconds idle and then such a burst again. The receiving and sending devices are also idiotic, closed source systems that insist on keeping receive window at 16kb.
What works best is a poor man tcp optimization (traffic is passed via the router proxies) thus making the idiotic small receive window size only a problem in the last segment. The proxy in mtk is severely limited so a better proxy or a real tcp optimization engine (and ability to do automatic optimization in certain cases based on firewall rules will be great) is needed much more than SQM. If you set your PCQ properly you don't have problems. This is the setup that works best for me:
1. use a queue tree for the interface outgoing traffic
1. set a top PCQ to do all 4 criteria - dst-address, dst-port, src-address, src-port and mask at /32 for ipv4
2. calculate bandwidth delay product for 5ms at data rate and set as pcq-limit (.e.g 25mbps the value is 15)
3. calculate bandwidth delay product for 5ms at line rate and set as pcq-total-limit (e.g. 100mbps the value is 61) - the default of 2000 is way off
4. set max-limit to your data rate or 95% of it, though usually data rate is enough
5. use subqueues if needed but in this case the pcq-total-limit is calculated for the bandwidth of the outer queue data rate assumed as line rate for the inner, each inner subqueue needs its own pcq
6. do this as close to the source of traffic as possible
 
buraglio
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 5:59 pm
Location: +1 (217)
Contact:

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:21 pm

Seconded. This would be a welcomed addition for many. Please consider it.
This is the way.
Indeed :lol:

It would be nice to be able to run either fq_codel or cake in RouterOS for better shaping options. Please consider adding this MikroTik.
ForwardingPlane, LLC
https://www.forwardingplane.net
 
santyx32
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:21 pm

CAKE on DD-WRT worked much better than Mikrotik's SFQ queue tree but it's too unstable for home networking (wifi crashes, wan drops, etc), consider adding CAKE queue type instead of FQ-Codel since it provides the lowest fluctuations during heavy load, http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/63079766 this is what I get with MK solution but the latency spikes up to 300ms while CAKE consistently mantained it under 130ms giving me A+ ratings.

Edit: this is my current config
arbol_colas.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
santyx32
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:00 pm

ROS 7 is now running over Linux 5.6.3 kernel, so I guess it's the time for real SQM like CAKE or fq-codel to be available in ROS
 
santyx32
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:52 pm

I'm planning to overhaul my home network by buying a TP-Link EAP-245 external AP and do SQM on my existing hAP AC2 router but there's still no SQM support in ROS 7 :(
It's a shame cause this little box has killer hardware for routing
 
santyx32
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:47 am

It's just Mikrotik not willing to implement modern queuing techniques on ROS, here's an speedtest of my hAP AC2 running piece of CAKE on OpenWRT firmware it just got rid of bufferbloat in a few clicks

Image

PD: I have 75/75mbps fiber but I limited it to 72000/72000kbps, tested over ethernet
 
User avatar
Chupaka
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 8511
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:15 pm
Location: Minsk, Belarus
Contact:

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:17 pm

Here's my 100/50 Mbps:

Image

What's wrong with bufferbloat?
Russian-speaking forum: https://forum.mikrotik.by/. Welcome!

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

MikroTik. Your life. Your routing.
 
santyx32
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Tue Aug 25, 2020 10:08 pm

Here's my 100/50 Mbps:

Image

What's wrong with bufferbloat?
Congrats, your ISP is probably doing an excellent QoS job so bufferbloat is not a problem for you

Those are my results without SQM

Image

Edit: I tested with hi res bufferbloat enabled, it makes more latency tests per run to give more accurate results.
 
anuser
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 518
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:26 pm

Bufferbloat and Beyond Removing Performance Barriers in Real-World Networks
Author Toke Høiland-Jørgensen

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09i48X2_ex0
Slides: https://blog.tohojo.dk/slides/bornhack2 ... beyond.pdf
Doctoral thesis: https://blog.tohojo.dk/media/bufferbloat-and-beyond.pdf

Image
 
ivantirado
just joined
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 4:58 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:19 am

Since it seems Mikrotik will never implement this, I've been experimenting with the options we DO have .... I found that setting a simple queue and capping UL/DL to 80% of rated bandwidth , and using PCQ yields very good results. It's perceivably faster and more responsive in all my applications and games. I have a CCR1016 and perhaps having that many PCQ queues to use all my cores accounts for this improvement.
Last edited by ivantirado on Sat Aug 29, 2020 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
DarkNate
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:37 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Fri Aug 28, 2020 2:39 am

This should help you all: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=73214
 
santyx32
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:03 pm

With Cake I get rid of lag (dslreports A+ wired and A+/A over 5ghz) by limiting my 75mbps connection to 72mbps, Mikrotik queues requires me to sacrifice way more bandwidth (~10mbps) to get an A result on dslreports. I guess this is caused by the ancient SFQ qdisc being a round robbin algorithm and subsequently the SFQ based propietary PCQ.

I actually like Mikrotik micromanagement and categorization approach but the SFQ qdisc makes it a latency disaster, if we could just select fq_codel as queue type it would be a great improvement.
 
ivantirado
just joined
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 4:58 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Sat Aug 29, 2020 11:36 pm

This should help you all: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=73214
It did help.. there was tip in the thread to adjust the bucket size to 0.005 and that made a big difference in my network.
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 24793
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:21 pm

+1 for fq_codel or cake
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
User avatar
mrz
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 6179
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Latvia
Contact:

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:23 pm

++1
 
onnoossendrijver
Member
Member
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:10 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:44 pm

I have the feeling that a new beta is coming :)
Linux/network engineer: ITIL, LPI1, CCNA R+S, CCNP R+S, JNCIA, JNCIS-SEC
 
User avatar
Chupaka
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 8511
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:15 pm
Location: Minsk, Belarus
Contact:

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:08 pm

Or the whole MikroTik team was hacked :D
Russian-speaking forum: https://forum.mikrotik.by/. Welcome!

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

MikroTik. Your life. Your routing.
 
ivantirado
just joined
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 4:58 am

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:43 pm

lol this is a new low.. I'm getting trolled by a router vendor hahaha
 
hci
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:10 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:57 pm

+++1
 
anuser
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 518
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:04 pm

+1 for fq_codel or cake
+ 1 Airtime Queue Limits (AQL) for IEEE 802.11
    https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/ma ... fast/wiki/:
    This project focuses on reducing latency throughout the wifi stack, firmware, and hardware.
      Ending the Anomaly: Achieving Low Latency and Airtime Fairness in WiFi:
      https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc17 ... n-jorgesen

      Image
       
      santyx32
      Member Candidate
      Member Candidate
      Posts: 157
      Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:13 am

      +1 for fq_codel or cake
      :D
       
      DarkNate
      Member Candidate
      Member Candidate
      Posts: 273
      Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:37 pm

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:04 pm

      Or the whole MikroTik team was hacked :D
      Seems likely, it coincides with IP>Cloud issues people were facing including me along with the forum timing out just about a week ago hahaha...
       
      cloneman
      just joined
      Posts: 1
      Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:45 am

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:51 am

      I don't have any problems with SFQ on Tomato or AsusWRT, but I would like fq_codel on Mikrotik nonetheless, it sounds relatively easy to impliment. Please add it so I can move to a a more business grade platform and not lose features.
      Last edited by cloneman on Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
       
      RavenWing71
      newbie
      Posts: 25
      Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 3:52 am

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:51 pm

      +1 for FQ_CoDel, +1000 for CAKE

      For those than just need a replacement for SFQ, FQ_CoDel sounds great.

      That's Not Me!

      I'm an ISP shaping traffic at the core. I need a Queuing Discipline (QDisc) that pays attention to DSCP. No QDisc currently available in ROS-6 pays any attention to any kind of priority markings on the packets. I have to build a HTB tree for each customer in the simple queues to be able to prioritize voice and video traffic over common traffic and demote bulk traffic. This results in 5 simple queue entries for each customer. But this only works for customers with Static IPs! I can find no way to build such trees for dynamic services who get their speeds from RADIUS. So all my PPPoE and RADIUS-DHCP customers suffer. If I had a QDisc like CAKE that DOES pay attention to DSCP, then the single simple queue that is dynamically created by RADIUS would work perfectly fine.

      And one thing to check in your CAKE implementation. The original DSCP Code Point for LE traffic was CS1 (001000). According to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8622, LE now has its own code point of '000001'
       
      santyx32
      Member Candidate
      Member Candidate
      Posts: 157
      Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Thu Oct 08, 2020 6:42 am

      I'm an ISP shaping traffic at the core.
      Finally an ISP that cares about providing low bufferbloat to its customers, kudos to you :D
       
      mikegleasonjr
      just joined
      Posts: 10
      Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:14 am

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Thu Dec 03, 2020 4:55 pm

      Finally it is happening. Cake and Codel support in RouterOS: https://mikrotik.com/download/changelog ... lease-tree

      Thanks Mikrotik _/\_
       
      AxezCode
      just joined
      Posts: 1
      Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:50 pm

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:47 pm

      Nice!

      Now all we need is to Mikrotik update their Queue Type documentation.

      But one step at a time.. At least we're moving in the right direction. Meanwhile I'll play with it and see what breaks what.
      Do you know how the water gets into the coconut? 8)
       
      ivantirado
      just joined
      Posts: 14
      Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 4:58 am

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:07 am

      Delivered on 7.1b3! Awesome, thanks Mikrotik.

      Off to test!
       
      thadrumr
      newbie
      Posts: 28
      Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:02 am

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:27 am

      I had problems enabling this in 7.1beta3 my CHR router would reboot every 20-30mins or so on Cake and a continuous reboot using FQ_CODEL
       
      ivantirado
      just joined
      Posts: 14
      Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 4:58 am

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Fri Dec 04, 2020 3:13 am

      Tested on my CCR1016 with both Cake and FQ_Codel.

      Cake performs poorly and limits my download a bit too hard.. perhaps it's CPU loading.

      FQ_Codel performs great and does the job.

      EDIT: Further testing - switched from simple queue to queue tree (upload on wan and download on lan) and Cake performs well in that configuration.
       
      mikegleasonjr
      just joined
      Posts: 10
      Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:14 am

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:30 am

      My RB4011 reboots regularly using Cake:
      jan/02/1970 00:02:55 system,error,critical router was rebooted without proper shutdown
      jan/01/2002 01:00:00 system,error,critical router was rebooted without proper shutdown
      jan/02/1970 00:02:55 system,error,critical router was rebooted without proper shutdown
      jan/01/2002 01:00:00 system,error,critical router was rebooted without proper shutdown
      
       
      russman
      Frequent Visitor
      Frequent Visitor
      Posts: 56
      Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 7:23 pm

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:56 pm

      So I upgraded to 7.1beta3 and went into the drop down queue type options... Did they name it something other than Cake and FQ-Codel?
       
      ivantirado
      just joined
      Posts: 14
      Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 4:58 am

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:05 am

      So I upgraded to 7.1beta3 and went into the drop down queue type options... Did they name it something other than Cake and FQ-Codel?
      No. They added Codel, FQ_Codel and Cake. However, you have to create a new queue type and assign one of those to that new queue type. It's not defined by default. (it wasn't on my install)
       
      depe
      just joined
      Posts: 14
      Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 8:06 pm

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:16 pm

      So, its possible to use cake or fq_codel to limit pppoe customers ?
      Sorry, but no info because is too new.
       
      User avatar
      Steveocee
      Forum Guru
      Forum Guru
      Posts: 1129
      Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:09 pm
      Location: UK
      Contact:

      Re: fq_codel or cake in v7

      Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:21 am

      Upgraded my Hex last night and removed my extremely large queue tree for a simple FQ_CoDel queue. So far so good, only anomaly was IP>Route not working correctly but I have more to read in that.

      Thank you Mikrotik team for acknowledging your customers.

      Question now is RB4011 or wait....
      Steve "Steveocee" Carter
      PC Gamer, Airsofter, MikroTik Nerd
      My Website - My MikroTik Tutorials

      Who is online

      Users browsing this forum: bruins0437, mbovenka and 11 guests