Community discussions

MUM Europe 2020
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Tue May 30, 2017 8:39 am

Hi,
I have an Rb951Ur-2nd and im trying to manage some QOS with pcq+queue tree.

The performance of the download is great, I can push the download really hard and still getting good pings to google, no lags in games, etc.
In other way the uploads seems to be with problems. When I push it (uploading dropbox+google drive+etc) my pings start to loose and get big delays in games..

My ISP provide my an ADSL 12MB/1.5MB connection. Tought that i dont need to mangle download and uploads in separate ways. Just select the queue parent correctly. Maybe the problem here?
/queue type
add kind=pcq name=pcq-down-12MB pcq-classifier=dst-address \
    pcq-dst-address6-mask=64 pcq-rate=12M pcq-src-address6-mask=64
add kind=pcq name=pcq-up-1M pcq-classifier=src-address pcq-dst-address6-mask=64 \
    pcq-rate=1M pcq-src-address6-mask=64
/queue tree
add name=Download parent=bridge queue=pcq-down-12MB
add name=HTTP/S packet-mark=HTTPS_P parent=Download priority=3 queue=\
    pcq-down-12MB
add name=OTRO packet-mark=OTRO_P parent=Download priority=6 queue=pcq-down-12MB
add name=Upload parent=ether1 queue=pcq-up-1M
add name=HTTP/S_U packet-mark=HTTPS_P parent=Upload priority=3 queue=pcq-up-1M
add name=HTTP/S_DOWN_U packet-mark=HTTPS_DOWN_P parent=Upload priority=7 queue=\
    pcq-up-1M
add name=OTRO_U packet-mark=OTRO_P parent=Upload priority=6 queue=pcq-up-1M
add name=P2P packet-mark=P2P_P parent=Download queue=pcq-down-12MB
add name=P2P_U packet-mark=P2P_P parent=Upload queue=pcq-up-1M
add name=VPN packet-mark=VPN_P parent=Download priority=1 queue=pcq-down-12MB
add name=VPN_U packet-mark=VPN_P parent=Upload priority=1 queue=pcq-up-1M
add name="GAMES PS4" packet-mark=GAMESPS4_P parent=Download priority=2 queue=\
    pcq-down-12MB
add name="GAMES PS4_U" packet-mark=GAMESPS4_P parent=Upload priority=2 queue=\
    pcq-up-1M
add name=WINBOX packet-mark=WINBOX_P parent=Download priority=1 queue=\
    pcq-down-12MB
add name=WINBOX_U packet-mark=WINBOX_P parent=Upload priority=1 queue=pcq-up-1M
add name=ICMP packet-mark=ICMP_P parent=Download priority=1 queue=pcq-down-12MB
add name=ICMP_U packet-mark=ICMP_P parent=Upload priority=1 queue=pcq-up-1M
add name="GAMES PC" packet-mark=GAMESPC_P parent=Download priority=2 queue=\
    pcq-down-12MB
add name="GAMES PC_U" packet-mark=GAMESPC_P parent=Upload priority=2 queue=\
    pcq-up-1M
add name=ORIGIN packet-mark=ORIGIN_P parent=Download priority=7 queue=\
    pcq-down-12MB
add name=ORIGIN_U packet-mark=ORIGIN_P parent=Upload priority=7 queue=pcq-up-1M
add name=HTTP/S_DOWN packet-mark=HTTPS_DOWN_P parent=Download priority=7 queue=\
    pcq-down-12MB
/ip firewall mangle
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment=VPN dst-address=\
    200.69.228.21 new-connection-mark=VPN_C passthrough=yes
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting connection-mark=VPN_C new-packet-mark=\
    VPN_P passthrough=yes
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment=ORIGIN/STEAM \
    dst-address-list=STEAM new-connection-mark=ORIGIN_C passthrough=yes
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting connection-mark=ORIGIN_C \
    new-packet-mark=ORIGIN_P passthrough=no
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment="PC GAMES" \
    new-connection-mark=PCGAMES_C passthrough=yes protocol=udp src-address=\
    172.16.100.10 src-port=\
    9306,61456,10046,3659,14000-14016,22990-23006,25200-25300
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting new-connection-mark=PCGAMES_C \
    passthrough=yes protocol=tcp src-address=172.16.100.10 src-port=\
    9988,17502,20000-20100,22990,42127,8095
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting connection-mark=PCGAMES_C \
    new-packet-mark=GAMESPC_P passthrough=no
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment="PS4 GAMES" dst-port=\
    9306,61456,62715,9306,26200,3074,3478-3479,3658-3659,6000,10070 \
    new-connection-mark=GAMEPS4_C passthrough=yes protocol=udp src-address=\
    172.16.100.13
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting dst-port=\
    465,983,1935,3478-3480,3659,5223,10000-10099,42127 new-connection-mark=\
    GAMEPS4_C passthrough=yes protocol=tcp src-address=172.16.100.13
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting connection-mark=GAMEPS4_C \
    new-packet-mark=GAMESPS4_P passthrough=no
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment=WINBOX dst-port=8291 \
    new-connection-mark=WINBOX_C passthrough=yes protocol=tcp
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting connection-mark=WINBOX_C \
    new-packet-mark=WINBOX_P passthrough=no
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment="HTTP/S DOWN" \
    connection-bytes=256001-0 dst-port=80 new-connection-mark=HTTPS_DOWN_C \
    passthrough=yes protocol=tcp
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting connection-bytes=256001-0 dst-port=\
    443 new-connection-mark=HTTPS_DOWN_C passthrough=yes protocol=tcp
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting connection-mark=HTTPS_DOWN_C \
    new-packet-mark=HTTPS_DOWN_P passthrough=no
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment=HTTP/S connection-bytes=\
    0-256000 dst-port=80 new-connection-mark=HTTPS_C passthrough=yes protocol=\
    tcp
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting connection-bytes=0-256000 dst-port=\
    443 new-connection-mark=HTTPS_C passthrough=yes protocol=tcp
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting connection-mark=HTTPS_C \
    new-packet-mark=HTTPS_P passthrough=no
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment=ICMP new-connection-mark=\
    ICMP_C passthrough=yes protocol=icmp
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting connection-mark=ICMP_C new-packet-mark=\
    ICMP_P passthrough=no
# p2p matcher is obsolete please use layer7 matcher instead
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment=P2P new-connection-mark=\
    P2P_C p2p=all-p2p passthrough=yes
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting connection-mark=P2P_C new-packet-mark=\
    P2P_P passthrough=no
add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment="Todo el resto" \
    new-connection-mark=OTRO_C passthrough=yes
add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting connection-mark=OTRO_C new-packet-mark=\
    OTRO_P passthrough=no
/ip firewall nat
add action=masquerade chain=srcnat comment="defconf: masquerade" out-interface=\
    ether1 src-address=172.16.0.0/16
/interface bridge
add admin-mac=6C:3B:6B:04:C6:93 auto-mac=no comment=defconfig fast-forward=no \
    name=bridge
/interface ethernet
set [ find default-name=ether1 ] comment=WAN
set [ find default-name=ether2 ] name=ether2-master
set [ find default-name=ether3 ] master-port=ether2-master
set [ find default-name=ether4 ] master-port=ether2-master
set [ find default-name=ether5 ] master-port=ether2-master
/interface wireless
set [ find default-name=wlan1 ] band=2ghz-b/g/n channel-width=20/40mhz-Ce \
    disabled=no distance=indoors frequency=auto mode=ap-bridge ssid=gat0 \
    wireless-protocol=802.11 wmm-support=enabled wps-mode=disabled
Thanks for your help.
Regards!
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:34 am

Hi,
Reading the forum found the problem but not the solution. :(

I made a new child in the queue tree with "no mark" and seems that the traffic is going that way. Is not getting marked.(attached image)
unmarked traffic.png
But i don't untherstand why. I seeing the connection marked ok on the connections label. (attached image). What im missing?
connectios.png
Regards
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:41 am

Those are my mangle rules.
mangle.PNG
Thanks
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
mducharme
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:38 am

FastTrack is bypassing mangle. You need to 'accept' the traffic that you intend to mark in filter rules before that traffic hits your fasttrack rule. Only traffic that you are fine with leaving at 'no-mark' can be fasttracked.
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:20 am

Thank you! thats a start! hehehe

Regards
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:34 am

HI,
Now queue upload is working great :).
But i have problems in download. When is busy (like attached image) some pings get delayed.
Captura de pantalla 2017-06-04 a la(s) 20.48.05.png
Captura de pantalla 2017-06-04 a la(s) 20.47.45.png
Also have some download traffic getting unmarked but I addeded this rules without succes
;;; Otras UDP
      chain=prerouting action=mark-connection new-connection-mark=OTRO_UDP_C 
      passthrough=yes protocol=udp connection-mark=no-mark in-interface=bridge 
      log=no log-prefix="" 

31    chain=prerouting action=mark-packet new-packet-mark=OTRO_UDP_P 
      passthrough=no connection-mark=OTRO_UDP_C log=no log-prefix="" 

32    chain=postrouting action=mark-connection 
      new-connection-mark=OTRO_UDP_C_post passthrough=yes protocol=udp 
      connection-mark=no-mark out-interface=bridge log=no log-prefix="" 

33    chain=postrouting action=mark-packet new-packet-mark=OTRO_UDP_P_post 
      passthrough=no connection-mark=OTRO_UDP_C_post log=no log-prefix=""
 ;;; Otras TCP
      chain=prerouting action=mark-connection new-connection-mark=OTRO_TCP_C 
      passthrough=yes protocol=tcp connection-mark=no-mark in-interface=bridge 
      log=no log-prefix="" 

35    chain=prerouting action=mark-packet new-packet-mark=OTRO_TCP_P 
      passthrough=no connection-mark=OTRO_TCP_C log=no log-prefix="" 
What do you think?

Regards
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
mducharme
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:41 pm

The latency is most likely due to an overly optimistic setting on the download parent queue max limit. What is most likely happening is at times your provider is not quite giving you 13Mbps and then your packets are getting queued and the latency results from that.

Keep in mind that download queueing of this sort is an imperfect solution, because UDP has no congestion control like TCP, limiting the UDP won't make it 'slow down', it will simply drop the packets after they have already used up your connection to the provider and that your provider has already counted as part of your utilization. Doing this is still better than nothing because at least the TCP will slow down. But this means that in order to get QoS you need to limit the download further below what you get from the provider to accommodate such UDP streams and it will still be an imperfect solution.

Also, priority setting on the parent queues and queue type setting on the parent queues has no effect. You do not need to change this, but it is simply good to know that in this case the parent queues could have queue type 'default' and priority 8 and it would behave exactly the same way. The parent queue priority is ignored and the queue itself is just used for a token bucket so type doesn't matter.

I can't tell why your last traffic is not getting marked, must be something else wrong, those rules look OK on first glance..
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:46 am

The latency is most likely due to an overly optimistic setting on the download parent queue max limit. What is most likely happening is at times your provider is not quite giving you 13Mbps and then your packets are getting queued and the latency results from that.

Keep in mind that download queueing of this sort is an imperfect solution, because UDP has no congestion control like TCP, limiting the UDP won't make it 'slow down', it will simply drop the packets after they have already used up your connection to the provider and that your provider has already counted as part of your utilization. Doing this is still better than nothing because at least the TCP will slow down. But this means that in order to get QoS you need to limit the download further below what you get from the provider to accommodate such UDP streams and it will still be an imperfect solution.
Excelent explanation! I will modify the limits to see what happen!

Thank for your help!
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:04 am

Hi,
I keep trying to get QOS in shape. Not an easy task (at least for me).

Latency due hard downloading do this.
When I Max Limit the hard download (HTTPS_DOWN) at 8MB latency increase. Ping and games get unsestables.
8MB Max limit.png
When I Max Limit the hard download (HTTPS_DOWN) at 4MB latency show stability with some packet lost.
4MB Max limit.png
My ISP provideme an ASDL 12MD / 1,5MUP. Testing it on online tester at nigts I got 20M DOWN / 2 MB UP.
If I set 4MB in on the MAX limit of this child Im wasting at least 6MB :(. Also "Limit AT" dont seem to work as HTB theory indicates. when lower prioritys (Prior 7) get to the maximum limit, the little conexion (100kb), with Hi prioriti (Prior 1 or 2) get "ignored" (al least on latency measure).
queue tree.png
Is this the best configuration or can get anotherwone saving more bandwith to optimize downloads (netflix, https, etc)?

Regards
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
ivicask
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:40 pm
Location: Croatia, Zagreb

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:41 am

I had same problems as you, only way to properly fix it, is to leave some reservation for your on-line games and make more parent queues to put in control unwanted traffic that slows the important one
As you can see in this example i made for you.
1.PNG
You can also make more parent queues like this to improve things further.
2.PNG
You can fine tune the value, if you dont want to sacrifice that 1mb of traffic you can try lowering it to 0.5mb or less (test for your self)
Of course repeat the thing for both your download and upload queues.

Reason im puting them in more parent queues is that i realized when queues are saturated it takes some time to start droping packets and that causes increased ping in games.More queues you have saturated more delay it causes.This way all queues are limited by parent queue which than wont saturate you max bandwidth from main parent queue.

Hope it helps :)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
mducharme
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:36 am

Hi,
I keep trying to get QOS in shape. Not an easy task (at least for me).

Latency due hard downloading do this.
When I Max Limit the hard download (HTTPS_DOWN) at 8MB latency increase. Ping and games get unsestables.
8MB Max limit.png

When I Max Limit the hard download (HTTPS_DOWN) at 4MB latency show stability with some packet lost.
4MB Max limit.png

My ISP provideme an ASDL 12MD / 1,5MUP. Testing it on online tester at nigts I got 20M DOWN / 2 MB UP.
If I set 4MB in on the MAX limit of this child Im wasting at least 6MB :(. Also "Limit AT" dont seem to work as HTB theory indicates. when lower prioritys (Prior 7) get to the maximum limit, the little conexion (100kb), with Hi prioriti (Prior 1 or 2) get "ignored" (al least on latency measure).
queue tree.png

Is this the best configuration or can get anotherwone saving more bandwith to optimize downloads (netflix, https, etc)?

Regards
Your children sum to too high of a 'limit at' value in total.

P2P (1Mb/s) + ORIGIN (1M) + HTTPS_DOWN (2M) + OTRO_UDP (1M) + OTRO (1M) + HTTPS_MID (2M) + CAM (1M) + no-mark (500k) + HTTPS (3M) + GAMES PS4 (1M) + GAMES PC (2M) + VPN (2M) + ICMP (200k) = about 18 Mbps

18 Mbps is higher than your parent's max limit of 12Mbps. Your QoS will not work this way.
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:21 am

I had same problems as you, only way to properly fix it, is to leave some reservation for your on-line games and make more parent queues to put in control unwanted traffic that slows the important one
As you can see in this example i made for you.
1.PNG

You can also make more parent queues like this to improve things further.
2.PNG
You can fine tune the value, if you dont want to sacrifice that 1mb of traffic you can try lowering it to 0.5mb or less (test for your self)
Of course repeat the thing for both your download and upload queues.

Reason im puting them in more parent queues is that i realized when queues are saturated it takes some time to start droping packets and that causes increased ping in games.More queues you have saturated more delay it causes.This way all queues are limited by parent queue which than wont saturate you max bandwidth from main parent queue.

Hope it helps :)
Hi,
Thank for your response.
I was working with your solution but still cant fix my problem.
Even using 4 MB Max limit for downloads, pings get delayed if smoebody is browsing.

Let me show you.

10MB Max limit in Heavy download child (HTTPS_DOWN).
10M Max limit.PNG
10M Max limit ping.PNG
4MB Max limit in Heavy download child (HTTPS_DOWN)
4M Max limit ping.PNG
Also tried differents thing on the Q Tree but didnt improve it. What do you think?

Regards
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:23 am

Hi,
I keep trying to get QOS in shape. Not an easy task (at least for me).

Latency due hard downloading do this.
When I Max Limit the hard download (HTTPS_DOWN) at 8MB latency increase. Ping and games get unsestables.
8MB Max limit.png

When I Max Limit the hard download (HTTPS_DOWN) at 4MB latency show stability with some packet lost.
4MB Max limit.png

My ISP provideme an ASDL 12MD / 1,5MUP. Testing it on online tester at nigts I got 20M DOWN / 2 MB UP.
If I set 4MB in on the MAX limit of this child Im wasting at least 6MB :(. Also "Limit AT" dont seem to work as HTB theory indicates. when lower prioritys (Prior 7) get to the maximum limit, the little conexion (100kb), with Hi prioriti (Prior 1 or 2) get "ignored" (al least on latency measure).
queue tree.png

Is this the best configuration or can get anotherwone saving more bandwith to optimize downloads (netflix, https, etc)?

Regards
Your children sum to too high of a 'limit at' value in total.

P2P (1Mb/s) + ORIGIN (1M) + HTTPS_DOWN (2M) + OTRO_UDP (1M) + OTRO (1M) + HTTPS_MID (2M) + CAM (1M) + no-mark (500k) + HTTPS (3M) + GAMES PS4 (1M) + GAMES PC (2M) + VPN (2M) + ICMP (200k) = about 18 Mbps

18 Mbps is higher than your parent's max limit of 12Mbps. Your QoS will not work this way.
Hi!,
Yes, I noticed that and changed.
Is better now (last post).

Regards
 
mducharme
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:41 am

Hi!,
Yes, I noticed that and changed.
Is better now (last post).

Regards
QoS will not work with two different queue structures set to the same parent interface - instead of one on bridge and one on ether1 you now have two on the bridge and two on ether1, this won't work.

ivicask's solution uses the global queue which is a bit different, and you don't see his packet marks which impacts how it works. I would not use global personally, it doesn't perform so good, I think what you had before is better than his solution.

I would assume however that bridge is your only internal interface? or do you have some other network set up ex. for guests?

Please compare your actual throughput on the interfaces with the throughput hitting the queues - make sure everything is getting matched. It could be that you are marking some traffic and not matching the mark in a queue, then your queue tree total will not match the interface total.
 
ivicask
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:40 pm
Location: Croatia, Zagreb

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:00 pm

Hi!,
Yes, I noticed that and changed.
Is better now (last post).

Regards
QoS will not work with two different queue structures set to the same parent interface - instead of one on bridge and one on ether1 you now have two on the bridge and two on ether1, this won't work.

ivicask's solution uses the global queue which is a bit different, and you don't see his packet marks which impacts how it works. I would not use global personally, it doesn't perform so good, I think what you had before is better than his solution.

I would assume however that bridge is your only internal interface? or do you have some other network set up ex. for guests?

Please compare your actual throughput on the interfaces with the throughput hitting the queues - make sure everything is getting matched. It could be that you are marking some traffic and not matching the mark in a queue, then your queue tree total will not match the interface total.
I only did that as example on random router to show him how can he improve it.(ignore the global queue)

And yes you are right, he must check if queues are catching Download/Upload traffic properly.
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:16 am

Hi!,
Yes, I noticed that and changed.
Is better now (last post).

Regards
QoS will not work with two different queue structures set to the same parent interface - instead of one on bridge and one on ether1 you now have two on the bridge and two on ether1, this won't work.

ivicask's solution uses the global queue which is a bit different, and you don't see his packet marks which impacts how it works. I would not use global personally, it doesn't perform so good, I think what you had before is better than his solution.

I would assume however that bridge is your only internal interface? or do you have some other network set up ex. for guests?

Please compare your actual throughput on the interfaces with the throughput hitting the queues - make sure everything is getting matched. It could be that you are marking some traffic and not matching the mark in a queue, then your queue tree total will not match the interface total.
Hi,
Yes, bridge is my virtual interface. Is seted by defaut in this hap router rb951 to join ether2, ether3 ,ether4 ,ether5 and wlan.
This is a print off the ports on the bridge
[admin@MikroTik] /interface bridge port> print
Flags: X - disabled, I - inactive, D - dynamic 
 #    INTERFACE                                                           BRIDGE                                                           PRIORITY  PATH-COST    HORIZON
 0    ;;; defconf
      ether2-master                                                       bridge                                                               0x80         10       none
 1    ;;; defconf
      wlan1                                                               bridge                                                               0x80         10       none
 2 ID ether3                                                              bridge                                                               0x80         10       none
 3 ID ether4                                                              bridge                                                               0x80         10       none
 4 ID ether5                                                              bridge                                                               0x80         10       none
Ether1 is not included because is my wan.

Now I have some improves.
I have modified kind of queue setting in to pfifo and queque size 1 (was on 50). Even using all bandwidth (12MB) on Max Limit the latency seems to perform a lot better.
But still having problems when the traffic is saturated and somebody add more traffic in another queue child that is not occuped. Ex. 12MB taked in HTTP DOWN child and someone start browsing (HTTP SMALL).

This is my queue tree now
queue tree.PNG
I will try to reserve some traffic for latency connections (0,5MB) making 2 differents childs on Download parent with all the other childers inside.

Regards
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:53 pm

Hi,
I was troubleshooting a bit more.
Setting the limits (AT and MAX) like the attached pic seem to be the best config to get high traffic and low latency in games and VPN. But i have to limite the Up traffic 1/3 of the real capacity.
  • Real capacity 1,5MB - 2MB ( tested with online web adsl testers and uploading files)
  • Limit 450k
When upload traffic get over 500 kbps games and pings show latency. Get worse when i set 1,5MB in Max limit (upload). Connections get totally loose. Maybe something wrong on my config?

This is my Queue Tree now.
queue tree.PNG
latency.PNG
Regards
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
gat0
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:37 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:37 am

Hi,
Just to check if i doing it right. My mangles rules first mark the connection (connection mark) and then do the packet mark without check if is an upload or download packet.
Then, the parent of the queue is defined on the interface that indicate the way (up=ether1 or down=bridge). Im right?
mangle rules.png
Regards
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
rollyboy
just joined
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:46 pm

Re: Upload problem Queue Tree+PCQ

Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:31 pm

Have you found any solution? I think there is some technical issues here that we cannot find properly or at least pinpoint it. Since our situation is more likely the same my dsl here gives me 8mbps down and 1mb up. I have followed numerous tutorials and followed exactly same settings that may help me out still the situation is the same that queue tree using pcq doesn't totally limit the upload since this is what we need hence it throttles all upload to max usage instead of controlling it. Regarding download so far is OK and kinda tricky but can manage.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 33 guests