Community discussions

 
Atnevon
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:06 pm
Contact:

CoDel support?

Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:05 am

This might be answered elsewhere, but I couldn't really find a definite answer via the forum search function, so I figured I'd throw it out there.

Are there any pending plans to support CoDel in a coming version of RouterOS? I know many people are using RouterBoard boxes on only very high bandwidth backbone style connections, but there's also a good number out there (myself included) that like using it for home and small office type connections, where CoDel can really make a big impact when congestion occurs.

(For those that have no idea what in the heck CoDel is, see this episode of Security Now for a more detailed explanation: http://twit.tv/show/security-now/359 )
 
cieplik206
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:25 am
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:49 am

Yes, my VOTE as well

Red about it some time ago. CoDel should be in Kernel in 3.5 Version so maybe.

It is primising advantage especialy over wireless networks
https://www.wispcasts.com - Mikrotik Video Tutorials.

The best place where you can improve your skills!

Facebook - F/wispcasts
Twitter - @wispcasts
 
valent
newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:47 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:59 pm

If you want CoDel support you should use OpenWrt instead of Mikrotik OS on your Routerboard, it works great!
 
Atnevon
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:19 pm

If you want CoDel support you should use OpenWrt instead of Mikrotik OS on your Routerboard, it works great!
That's most certainly a good tip for anyone that only wants CoDel and doesn't necessarily care about the OS, but I'm really wanting to see it specifically on RouterOS, and I don't see a reason why they couldn't squeeze it in to a future release. I'm sure I'm not alone there either.
 
User avatar
NetworkPro
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1369
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Worldwide
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:59 am

MikroTik do improve queueing when they can.

What is a benefit of Codel compared to <hardware-only-queue + a PCQ queue for equality> ?

Thanks.
wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/NetworkPro_on_Quality_of_Service
 
valent
newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:47 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:18 pm

Static queue techniques are great on fixed bandwidth links, but are useless on wifi and other type of links that have dynamic bandwidth.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK Mikrotik doesn't support any active queue management techniques (AQM) [1], CoDel is AQM type of QoS.

Hope that clears a bit.

UPDATE:
Mikrotik supports one aqm qos type, that is RED [2]

Quote from wikipedia:
"Early AQM disciplines (notably RED and SRED) require careful tuning of their parameters in order to provide good performance. Modern AQM disciplines (ARED, Blue, PI) are self-tuning, and can be run with their default parameters in most or all circumstances."

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_queue_management
[2] http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Queue#RED
 
spire2z
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:48 am

Re: CoDel support?

Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:28 pm

I actually thought that PCQ kinda did that? But I may have understood it wrong?

CoDel certainly sounds good for a wireless link when the bandwidth always varies a bit..
 
jaytcsd
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:50 am
Location: Pittsboro IN
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:39 am

I'd like to see CoDel too.
 
odge
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:28 am

Hi Mikrotik support, have you seen this query, or watched the second half of
http://twit.tv/show/security-now/359 or read the PDF at
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2210000 ... 98d7f53cc6

It would be such an improvement to have this sort of Active Queue Management (AQM).

Note: Codel and "percentage" based queues (changing on the Codel output answer), would be the ultimate win, and probably put your demand absolutely sky high.

Van Jacobson saves the Internet world again!

Regards

---EDIT:
1. Mikrotik replied and said they would investigate further, please post here if you understand the benefits of Codel and would like to see it implemented as well, watch the video and read the PDF to see how much and improvement to queueing it is.
2. Percentage based queuing was originally requested here: http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... nt#p139817
3. Factor based queueing is also incredinbly advantageous once you have a codel queue see my post here of a use case: http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=65166
 
User avatar
NetworkPro
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1369
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Worldwide
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:41 pm

Codel + no drop option of some of our packets that is enough to begin with and to keep it simple
wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/NetworkPro_on_Quality_of_Service
 
odge
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:55 pm

Mikrotik, any news that this has been reviewed yet, etc?

It would be really nice if Mikrotik had a person whose sole job it was is to categorise and deduplicate feature requests and bugs, so we could monitor progress of those in a orderly fashion without having to bug you about it.

workflow steps might include
"Duplication - see xxxxxx"
"Not reviewed yet"
"Initial review, and accepted, in depth review set for yyyy/mm/dd"
"rejected after initial review with reason"
"Indepth completed, planned inclusion revision and date"
"completed"
"revised to include in revision and date"

you get the idea...
 
User avatar
NetworkPro
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1369
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Worldwide
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:39 pm

Yeah they could give US visibility over what THEY DO but that's not very polite to ask in the first place, with the current surrounding culture.
wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/NetworkPro_on_Quality_of_Service
 
odge
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:51 pm

Yeah they could give US visibility over what THEY DO but that's not very polite to ask in the first place, with the current surrounding culture.

I think perhaps I don't fully understand what you are implying. But it seems you mean, its not necessary for them to explain themselves to us?

But from my point of view, with all the other suppliers whom we partner and resell their goods, the most successful ones, keep good track of their customers, and their customers' customers requests.
it isn't even necessary to share all steps, at all points, but whether a feature request has been reviewed, and a central "reviewer" deduplicating the list is a very good way to keep track of your customers interests.

Anyway, I don't want to fill up this thread with unrelated info, so if you do reply, maybe we should move it do a different thread.

Kind Regards
 
odge
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:37 am

Dear Mikrotik,

I'm hoping you are going to blow us away with a queue development announcement sometime soon. :)

To keeping this thread alive!

Regards!
 
valent
newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:47 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:29 am

+1 from me to ;) I'll ask them this question in person on next mum.
 
User avatar
pcunite
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 945
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 5:13 am
Location: USA

Re: CoDel support?

Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:18 pm

+1 from me to ;) I'll ask them this question in person on next mum.
Please do ... static limit-at and max-limit options are not the real solutions going forward when everyone (re)discovers bufferbloat. However, it seems work is being done to add CoDel to the Linux kernel itself.
 
normalcy
newbie
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: CoDel support?

Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:17 pm

Eagerly awaiting some indication that mikrotik will add fq_codel support as another AQM algorithm as it is in the Linux kernel and seems to be a great cpe solution (no manual tuning and fast response for variable wifi links).

http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cer ... oat-videos

http://gettys.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/ ... -in-linux/

http://gettys.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/ ... ll-queues/
From the last link:
"The combination of TSQ, fq_codel and BQL (Byte Queue Limits) gets us much of the way to solving bufferbloat on Ethernet in Linux. Unfortunately, wireless remains a challenge (the drivers need to have a bunch of packets for 802.11n aggregation, and this occurs below the level that fq_codel can work on), as do other device types. For example, a particular DSL device we looked at last week has a minimum ring buffer size of 16, again, occurring beneath Linux’s queue discipline layer. ”Smart” hardware has become a major headache. So there is much to be done yet in Linux, much less other operating systems."
Why do IT guys always confuse Halloween and Christmas?
Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec
 
dtaht
just joined
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:46 am

Re: CoDel support?

Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:19 am

A couple notes:

1) codel and fq_codel are not words for the same thing. codel is a drop strategy that keeps queue lengths shorter and overall latency lower. fq_codel combines drr-style packet scheduling with a few twists to give sparser flows (think dns, voip, and gaming packets) priority in the queue over flows (big downloads) that build a queue. It uses codel to keep the resulting flows shorter. In the general case on a home router, use fq_codel not codel.

You can think of it as a drop in sfq replacement that works well at higher bandwidths, or as a RED replacement that doesn't require painful configuration, but it's better than either or both, combined.

2) fq_codel is part of the linux wireless-backports package which has been backported as far back as linux 2.6.32. It's my hope that's far enough for more distros to pick it up. It's been in the kernel since version 3.5 and continually improved since.

3) codel or fq_codel do NOT require BQL in it's most common use case, which is in a rate limited ingres/egress qos system. Where something like htb or hfsc is used to control the available bandwidth, you attach fq_codel underneath instead of the default qdisc, pfifo_fast. A ton of products are using it now in their QoS systems.

BQL support is desirable if you attach it as a raw qdisc to an ethernet device. BQL doesn't apply to wifi devices at all, and although you can attach fq_codel to the mq qdisc that most wifi devices use, work is still ongoing to make it work well with the excess buffering present in most wifi device drivers. Although openwrt has made fq_codel it's default on everything, it's a little premature to be shipping wifi AP products based on fq_codel without testing the behavior on contested links and a hard look at the device drivers involved. fq_codel works pretty well on clients with single wifi queue interfaces (think: android, or your laptop).

Lastly there are some new gear that bypass the qdisc structures in linux entirely, (octeon stuff) and I have NO data as to how well or even if fq_codel can apply there. I'm under the impression the octeons do RED in hardware, and if you can configure that, go for it... and I'd love it if fq_codel could be added to that firmware one day, too.

I'd be really happy if it showed up in microtik's products where it could apply, and wish you all well on trying it. For questions about how it works, please ask the code or ietf "aqm"l mailing list, google for 'bloat-videos', read the bufferbloat website, see the 'rrul rogues gallery'.

For status on the uptake into (for example) the cable industry, google for "active queue management algorithms for docsis 3.0".

There's far more to fix than just cable of course, and it will take a while for the industry and the ietf to settle on standards, but with the code generally available I'd hope you leap on it.
 
leonix
newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:13 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:08 am

I also want to see CoDel-support. I have no experiences yet (because it is not implemented in all of our ~200 mikrotik routers ); but I read a article about it in German journal ct 20/2013 (page 184/189) and they had quite good experiences with it (on a DSL connection).
The basic principle of it is: it will observe the resting time of packet that are in the queue; once it detects that packets of a certain connection are longer than e.g. 100ms in the queue, it will drop all future packets of this connection (some additional conditions are a full queue and more...).

Leo.
 
odge
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:56 am

Same here. We have several hundreds of Mikrotiks (and growing) connected to dsl lines. Because of the non guaranteed nature of dsl we are desperately trying to all the time to modify queues as the growth of the dslam changes, but codel is going to allow dynamic queues for these lines. MT are you guys taking this seriously as a feature request yet?

If a MT is Connected to a dsl line would it require something with a very small buffer as well? (Since it would need to know the queue has run out, so unless the modem is in a MT, would this work?
 
leonix
newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:13 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:16 pm

CoDel can be configured
http://linuxmanpages.net/manpages/fedor ... del.8.html
The 5ms or the number of conccurrent tcp-flows are not hardcoded and can be adjusted. So it is possibly also useful for wireless links with longer delays or more load.

Leo
 
PtDragon
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:52 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:37 pm

+1 for CoDel
Why not to use it?
CCR1036-12G-4S +6x100Mbit ^_^
 
bjoernhoefer
just joined
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:34 am

Re: CoDel support?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:06 am

+1 from me
 
ConnorM
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:24 am

Re: CoDel support?

Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:35 am

+1 also

i currently use ubnt EdgeMax platform with edgerouter lite and i was glad to do all i could to help in getting fq_codel into edgemax (which was not much, mainly testing is where i can help) most of that work was done my mr Dave Taht

edgerouter lite is great, but no wireless built in, many mikrotik routerboard products have wireless built in, this i like.

if fq_codel was implemented in routerOS i would have to get me something to try it out with

plz mikrotik, this is the best queuing mechanism there is! and no cost to implement!
 
normalcy
newbie
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: CoDel support?

Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:56 pm

I'd love to see codel in there too but they may prefer Cisco's PIE instead which is also in the newest kernels.
Why do IT guys always confuse Halloween and Christmas?
Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec
 
ConnorM
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:24 am

Re: CoDel support?

Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:44 pm

I'd love to see codel in there too but they may prefer Cisco's PIE instead which is also in the newest kernels.
fq_codel outperforms pie in most testing done, apparently the only advantage to PIE is that its slightly easier to use

but it probably requires liscence or something like that. anyone can use fq_codel!

fq_codel>PIE
 
PacketsCJE
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:58 am

Re: CoDel support?

Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:16 am

+1 for CoDel support.

I have home cable Internet service that's rated at 15 Mb/s down and 1 Mb/sec up. My cable modem is a Motorola Surfboard 6141 (DOCSIS 3.0). Average ping time to google.com from an idle connection is about 30 ms. I currently use my Mikrotik RB951-2N at home to limit my Internet bandwidth, using the wireless-default sfq bound to my external wlan1-gateway to limit to 12 Mb/s download and 800 kbits/s upload, respectively. I've verified from Internet speed tests that these limits are enforced as expected.

And the bandwidth limitation has improved my user experience during uploads. During an upload that is saturating my upstream Internet bandwidth, my connection is actually usable (and I can simultaneously ping e.g. google.com with only a 30-50 ms increase in ping time.) before setting the bandwidth limitation, when trying to ping an Internet site during an upload I would get extremely high ping times and significant packet loss--and have extreme delay or be unable to simultaneously pull up a web page in a browser.

Yet even now with the router bandwidth limitation do the http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/ test, it consistently shows 1000-2000 ms bufferbloat. And am I correct that in theory, I would not have my ping times increase at all during an upload? I am relatively new to understanding buffer bloat but have recently read up on it extensively. Am I correct in imagining that CoDel would improve my home Internet experience even further than the fixed bandwidth limitation already has? Or is there anything else I could currently tweak?

Thanks!
 
User avatar
pcunite
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 945
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 5:13 am
Location: USA

Re: CoDel support?

Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:42 pm

Yet even now with the router bandwidth limitation do the http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/ test, it consistently shows 1000-2000 ms bufferbloat. And am I correct that in theory, I would not have my ping times increase at all during an upload? I am relatively new to understanding buffer bloat but have recently read up on it extensively. Am I correct in imagining that CoDel would improve my home Internet experience even further than the fixed bandwidth limitation already has? Or is there anything else I could currently tweak?
My understanding.
 
odge
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:43 pm

Hi Mikrotik,

Its a pity more users dont understand codel or Cisco's PIE. (As if queueing in general isn't difficult enough for people).

If they did you would have a massive following on this. I really hope you have given sufficient research to just how powerful it can - if implemented with a HTB style that you have now (for actually setting it up), it will change queuing drastically. Having a "ms"+ priority based queue instead of fixed size will do wonders for dynamic Qos on uploads (and in internet links that arent fibre, this is the main problem).
 
Azendale
newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:21 am

I too would like to see CoDel support. This is the kind of stuff customers notice, without ever even having to know how or why its better.

(I'm talking about the people that don't realize the traffic they are moving through their home router (say streaming video over tcp/http on multiple devices) and they wonder why the latency on their connection seems so high. Having bufferbloat fixed by default can lead to people saying router band x (mikrotik, we hope!) is fast. Of course, they have no idea that it really doesn't have to do with how fast the CPU is, but how smart is is managing the demand to not let latency go up.)

I can say that the open source firmware (cerowrt I think it is called) that is designed to fix this problem is a contender in my mind for the CPE market where the ISP supplies or recommends a router. (The ISP would love to have their service not seem slow even when it is seeing 100% use.) I will say mikrotik for CPE is something we have thought about before. If you had bufferbloat management, I think after doing some lab demonstrations I could make a pretty good argument to my boss that this is what we need to use.
 
Azendale
newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:14 pm

Firmware/router I was talking about in my last post: http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cer ... ease_Notes
 
odge
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:54 pm

fq_codel? AQM? the future?, Mikrotik, Normis, any of this on the way?
 
User avatar
chechito
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:14 am
Location: Bogota Colombia
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Tue Dec 15, 2015 4:56 am

+1 8)
 
barkas
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:51 pm

AW: CoDel support?

Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:58 pm

Yes please.
 
alaskanjackal
newbie
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:29 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:38 am

Still nothing? Count my vote in.
 
Note
newbie
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:39 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:58 am

i cant even believe that 5 years after 1st post there is no answer from mikrotik for that most vary feature.

Even small companies like netgear sell now cheap routers under sqm function, where in 1 sec u can press a checkbox and u have the perfect QOS. That is something u cannot manage in ROS after months...............

Good job mikrotik, cheers from me and keep on like that :(
 
creed23
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:10 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:34 am

Any update?
 
R1CH
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:44 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:04 am

No new kernel, so no update. Probably need to wait for RouterOS v7 or move to a different platform if you want this.
 
User avatar
Steveocee
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1110
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:09 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 11:37 am

Any update?
Not available (yet) but both SFQ and PCQ can provide a solution if you don't have brand flexibility.
Steve "Steveocee" Carter
PC Gamer, Airsofter, MikroTik Nerd
My Website - My MikroTik Tutorials
 
jaytcsd
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:50 am
Location: Pittsboro IN
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:45 am

thanks for the tip Steve
 
Azendale
newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:45 pm

Not available (yet) but both SFQ and PCQ can provide a solution if you don't have brand flexibility.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I appreciate that you are trying to find a workaround), but my understanding is those require something with fixed bandwith that you can tune the settings to. Isn't the whole point of CoDel to work well on variable capacity links (think wireless, whether it be LAN or WAN) were you can't predict what you have available, so you have to watch round trip time to detect buffers filling and then start dropping some packets to back TCP off to keep buffers not too full and latency low?
 
User avatar
Steveocee
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1110
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:09 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:26 am

Not available (yet) but both SFQ and PCQ can provide a solution if you don't have brand flexibility.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I appreciate that you are trying to find a workaround), but my understanding is those require something with fixed bandwith that you can tune the settings to. Isn't the whole point of CoDel to work well on variable capacity links (think wireless, whether it be LAN or WAN) were you can't predict what you have available, so you have to watch round trip time to detect buffers filling and then start dropping some packets to back TCP off to keep buffers not too full and latency low?
My experience of FQ_Codel you had to set hard upload and download limits. Also predicting bandwidth available isn't that hard, find the rough maximum and minus a few Mb to ensure you are really controlling the limit.
Steve "Steveocee" Carter
PC Gamer, Airsofter, MikroTik Nerd
My Website - My MikroTik Tutorials
 
HzMeister
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:48 pm

Re: CoDel support?

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:32 pm

I just spent this past weekend comparing fq_codel(smart queue) on a ubiquiti edgerouter with sfq on mikrotik. With all this talk of how great codel is I expected the performance difference to be huge. After doing extensive testing with various configs in different scenarios, I didn't find one system to be significantly better than the other. Both are equally capable, just different in their approach. It comes down to how much is automated and therefore how much control you have and the effort needed to optimize it.
The main benefit I found with fq_codel is that you can get good results by just setting max limits and clicking enable. It does a pretty good job of distributing smaller, latency sensitive, traffic and bigger downloads without much effort(that's what it's made for after all). The downside is that it's a lot more complex under the hood and you lose fine-grain control over these packets because everything is automated by the algorithm.
In contrast, with routeros you need to manually control every packet to get similar performance. An sfq simple queue just doesn't cut it. Once I set up a queue tree with different tiers classifying traffic using mangle rules based on type, source, connection rate+bytes, etc., routeros actually did better in very demanding scenarios that it was optimized for..
Would I like to see fq_codel in routerOS eventually? Of course. It would be a huge boon for mikrotik to attract new users who would like to implement qos but are dissuaded by the complexity and poor routeros documentation/examples. Fq-codel would be an excellent one-click solution for most people.
As a side note, edgeOS is absolutely horrible compared to routerOS. If it didn't have fq-codel it would be a huge pia, if at all possible, to setup a similar config to routeros. After finding that fq_codel isn't entirely necessary, there is no way I'd ever switch over from mikrotik.
 
User avatar
Steveocee
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1110
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:09 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:17 pm

I just spent this past weekend comparing fq_codel(smart queue) on a ubiquiti edgerouter with sfq on mikrotik. With all this talk of how great codel is I expected the performance difference to be huge. After doing extensive testing with various configs in different scenarios, I didn't find one system to be significantly better than the other. Both are equally capable, just different in their approach. It comes down to how much is automated and therefore how much control you have and the effort needed to optimize it.
The main benefit I found with fq_codel is that you can get good results by just setting max limits and clicking enable. It does a pretty good job of distributing smaller, latency sensitive, traffic and bigger downloads without much effort(that's what it's made for after all). The downside is that it's a lot more complex under the hood and you lose fine-grain control over these packets because everything is automated by the algorithm.
In contrast, with routeros you need to manually control every packet to get similar performance. An sfq simple queue just doesn't cut it. Once I set up a queue tree with different tiers classifying traffic using mangle rules based on type, source, connection rate+bytes, etc., routeros actually did better in very demanding scenarios that it was optimized for..
Would I like to see fq_codel in routerOS eventually? Of course. It would be a huge boon for mikrotik to attract new users who would like to implement qos but are dissuaded by the complexity and poor routeros documentation/examples. Fq-codel would be an excellent one-click solution for most people.
As a side note, edgeOS is absolutely horrible compared to routerOS. If it didn't have fq-codel it would be a huge pia, if at all possible, to setup a similar config to routeros. After finding that fq_codel isn't entirely necessary, there is no way I'd ever switch over from mikrotik.
Nothing shocking there that “auto” worked but not as well as a well set up manual approach.
Steve "Steveocee" Carter
PC Gamer, Airsofter, MikroTik Nerd
My Website - My MikroTik Tutorials
 
kasi
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 10:00 am

Re: CoDel support?

Wed May 01, 2019 10:07 am

Is there fq_codel solution available for usage in beta or current version?

I have used fq_codel in multiple environments as solution when the internet connection is not fast enough for handling f.e. 100 computers under 100Mbps line needing it to be balanced that everyone has a small portion from the line and nobody can get full bandwith when somebody needs a little portion.

At the moment I'm thinking to apply this to my home network. Most likely I will use f.e. that SFQ, if not fq_codel available, to get IPTV working properly when someone is downloading f.e. updates to his computer / phone.
 
User avatar
Steveocee
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1110
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:09 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: CoDel support?

Fri May 03, 2019 5:39 pm

I have used fq_codel in multiple environments as solution when the internet connection is not fast enough for handling f.e. 100 computers under 100Mbps line needing it to be balanced that everyone has a small portion from the line and nobody can get full bandwith when somebody needs a little portion.
What you are describing there is more or less a textbook PCQ scenario.
Steve "Steveocee" Carter
PC Gamer, Airsofter, MikroTik Nerd
My Website - My MikroTik Tutorials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 80 guests