100Mbps down/10Mbps up Cable Internet connection, HEX as CE router between cable modem and LAN router.

I am trying to shape the traffic (especially WAN -> LAN) so a large download doesn't significantly impact network performance.

5% for real time traffic, LLQ (strict priority, no queuing)
30% for streaming WFQ
70% for remaining WFQ

flow-based WFQ fairly allocates queue bandwidth among all flows to handle the mouse/elephant issue.

So how can I implement Cisco style CBWFQ on RouterOS? I played with Queues and it seemed to have no effect on traffic at all. Is it because of fastpath/fasttrack?

If I am to add a second Internet connection later, how can I apply another QoS policy for it?
From what I read, there is no interface ingress policing/shaping at all (only marking) in ROS 6.x, is this correct?

After reading the wiki and several MUM presentations I still don't quite understand QoS implementation on current RoS for HEX.

Hi,

indeed, without further configuration (mangling your traffic), you cannot use both, queues and fasttrack.

Please read viewtopic.php?t=98133 as reference.

Regards,
Ape

You need to remote fasttrack to make ques works, see video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LaqhDm6PHI

I disabled fast track and still QoS has no effect.

CM <> Eth1 RB750GR3 Eth5 vlan10 <> LAN router

How should I configure interface queues for ingress, egress physical interface, egress VLAN? What does it mean when queue type and active queue type is different? Or it is irrelevant/active should be queue tree if I am using Tree?

Queue Tree is implied postrouting (so shaping only possible on egress interface)?

My main concern is latency during large downloads, so SFQ on interface parent queue, 1 FIFO for LLQ, rest SFQs?

Where should I mark/mangle packets?
https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Packet_Flow
imo classification should be done after input filter in my use case
Some people recommended for no_mark, just to a user defined classification chain to perform classification

My intent is to classify connections in non-default queues and later mark the packets. For all no_mark connections, mark packet cm_in_default-packet. It turns out 20% of packets are still at the queue...

<code>

/ip firewall mangle> print
Flags: X - disabled, I - invalid, D - dynamic
0 ;;; cm-in, conn no-mark -> jump classification chain
chain=forward action=jump jump-target=classification connection-state=new connection-mark=no-mark in-interface=ether1_wan-cm log=no log-prefix=""

1 ;;; mark connection cm_in_ICMP-conn
chain=classification action=mark-connection new-connection-mark=cm_in_ICMP-conn passthrough=yes connection-state=new protocol=icmp
in-interface=ether1_wan-cm log=no log-prefix=""

2 ;;; mark conn cm_in_gaming_r6siege-conn
chain=classification action=mark-connection new-connection-mark=cm_in_gaming_r6siege-conn passthrough=yes connection-state=new protocol=udp
in-interface=ether1_wan-cm dst-port=3074 log=no log-prefix=""

3 X ;;; mark connection cm_in_default-conn
chain=classification action=mark-connection new-connection-mark=cm_in_default-conn passthrough=yes connection-state=new log=no log-prefix=""

4 ;;; mark packet cm_in_control-packet
chain=forward action=mark-packet new-packet-mark=cm_in_control-packet passthrough=no connection-mark=cm_in_ICMP-conn log=no log-prefix=""

5 ;;; mark packet cm_in_gaming-packet
chain=forward action=mark-packet new-packet-mark=cm_in_gaming-packet passthrough=no connection-mark=cm_in_gaming_r6siege-conn log=no log-prefix=""

6 ;;; mark packet cm_in_default-packet
chain=forward action=mark-packet new-packet-mark=cm_in_default-packet passthrough=no connection-mark=no-mark log=no log-prefix=""

</code>

Mikrotik QoS is definitely far more counter-intuitive than Cisco/Juniper...