Community discussions

MUM Europe 2020
 
YappaDappa
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:34 pm

Gamers are complaining

Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:28 am

Hello All.

Here's the quick list:
RB230's loaded with level 5 2.9.12
Prism cards with latest firmwares (1.1.1/1.8.4)
3 cards active, fed to 15db 120deg sector antennas

All started off fine. I backhaul T1s to each of my sites, currently six. For months I advertised "faster than DSL" because... it was.

But now I have gamers that complain about frequent disconnects, poor ping times, and unexplained network drops.

Not much has changed with the configuration, except that we are using 2.9.12 and we have more users. Can anyone offer some experience or tips on how to optimize service for gamers. We don't need much bandwidth (256 up/down with 1Mbit burst for 30secs) We use only B. And yes, I understand that game servers or the clients computers can be laggy for various reasons. i just want to make sure we are doing our best to optimize the MT routers for what we are offering.
Regards!
 
cibernet
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: Marcos Juárez, Córdoba, Argentina
Contact:

Re: Gamers are complaining

Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:36 am

Hello All.

Here's the quick list:
RB230's loaded with level 5 2.9.12
Prism cards with latest firmwares (1.1.1/1.8.4)
3 cards active, fed to 15db 120deg sector antennas

All started off fine. I backhaul T1s to each of my sites, currently six. For months I advertised "faster than DSL" because... it was.

But now I have gamers that complain about frequent disconnects, poor ping times, and unexplained network drops.

Not much has changed with the configuration, except that we are using 2.9.12 and we have more users. Can anyone offer some experience or tips on how to optimize service for gamers. We don't need much bandwidth (256 up/down with 1Mbit burst for 30secs) We use only B. And yes, I understand that game servers or the clients computers can be laggy for various reasons. i just want to make sure we are doing our best to optimize the MT routers for what we are offering.
Regards!
How much suscribers do you have per card? Have you disable forwarding on each card? Post some config of your MT.

Regards!
José Ignacio Acosta
MikroTik Consultant IDAR0001
Mikronet

Movile: +54 9 3472-624722
Email/Msn: info[at]mikronet.com.ar
 
User avatar
djape
Member
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: Serbia

Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:11 pm

Also, check if there is any p2p activity, if yes "drop" it....
I drink like a pirate and smoke like a hippie...
 
shielder
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: Indonesia

Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:07 am

802.11b could only handle max 3-5 mbps bandwidth (real time traffic) for point to point. If you use it on point to multi point, the max bandwidth would drop depends on the range from AP to client, the noise level, the signal level, many problems would affect wireless. :D

Try to give us more information about your wireless, how many clients are on 1 sector, and some more details so we can help you. :wink:

Regards,
Lim
 
YappaDappa
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:34 pm

Heya

Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:19 am

Ok, here's some more info.

3 sectors, running 200mw cards
sector 1 has 13 clients
sector 2 has 9 clients
sector 3 has 44 clients

Now, before you say I have too many on sector 3, usage on this sector is very balanced (day/night) I rarely have more than 10 active connections going at once.

Average bandwidth consumption is 1.2Mb for entire sector

Just tonight, running pings from my router at home to my RB230 on the hill, 1/2mile away, I get anywhere from 4ms to 320ms

I am quite frustrated. Seems like the bigger we get, the worse our performance. I am biggining to suspect P2P traffic, but queues are set relatively low, and to the high bandwidth consumer, I make sure to keep their priority at 8, while "professional users get a 2 or 3. Plus, when I tried P2P/mangling, CPU usage shot to 100%, and still didn't seem to affect things like bit torrent.

I link to the hill with a motorola 5700BH10, which has a near perfect connection (-41)

CPU usage averages 7%, sometimes peaks to 29%

I HAVE disabed forwarding on all cards.

All are on 2.9.12, as of last week. That is when I began noticing higher than usual complaints.

A year ago things were flawless. now, things suck. Please help. My rich competitor uses all Cisco, and LOVES to hear about our problems and has said some pretty shamful things about our choice in hardware/software.
 
YappaDappa
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:34 pm

hello friends

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:20 am

here's what my pings look like
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=63

Again, this is just a half mile away, adn the average ping time is 43ms.

I also found out something. Page resolution is VERY slow. I had DNS caching enabled before the 2.9.12 upgrade. Anyone have problems here?
 
cibernet
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: Marcos Juárez, Córdoba, Argentina
Contact:

Re: hello friends

Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:00 am

here's what my pings look like
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=63
Reply from 67.131.78.7: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=63

Again, this is just a half mile away, adn the average ping time is 43ms.

I also found out something. Page resolution is VERY slow. I had DNS caching enabled before the 2.9.12 upgrade. Anyone have problems here?
Add this rule on terminal:
add chain=forward src-address=0.0.0.0/0 dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 p2p=all-p2p action=drop
and reboot, then check if the problem is still there, also check if connection tracking is enabled

Regards
 
YappaDappa
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:34 pm

Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:10 am

is it possible to only block P2P from 7AM-11:59PM?
Also, I heard it was better to just let P2P barely leak through, instead of blocking it fully. What's your take?
 
cibernet
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: Marcos Juárez, Córdoba, Argentina
Contact:

Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:14 am

is it possible to only block P2P from 7AM-11:59PM?
Also, I heard it was better to just let P2P barely leak through, instead of blocking it fully. What's your take?
Yes you can, add this rule:
add chain=forward p2p=all-p2p time=7h-23h59m,sat,fri,thu,wed,tue,mon,sun action=drop
Regards
 
YappaDappa
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:34 pm

Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:31 am

wow. so easy when you know what your are doing! I just tested this and it works great. Ok, one more variable. say I just want to give em 64k for P2P during the day, and unl at night. Is this possible?
 
cibernet
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: Marcos Juárez, Córdoba, Argentina
Contact:

Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:35 am

wow. so easy when you know what your are doing! I just tested this and it works great. Ok, one more variable. say I just want to give em 64k for P2P during the day, and unl at night. Is this possible?
Yes, add a simple queue like this:
queue simple add name="P2P" target-addresses=0.0.0.0/0 dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 interface=all parent=none direction=both priority=8 queue=default/default limit-at=0/0 max-limit=64000/64000 total-queue=default time=6h-23h59m,sun,mon,tue,wed,thu,fri,sat p2p=all-p2p
Regards
 
YappaDappa
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:34 pm

Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:44 am

I'll test this today. This community is lucky to have people like you.

As an added filter do you recommend limiting connections for subscribers? If so, how?

Thanks alot amigo!
 
cibernet
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: Marcos Juárez, Córdoba, Argentina
Contact:

Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:56 am

I'll test this today. This community is lucky to have people like you.

As an added filter do you recommend limiting connections for subscribers? If so, how?

Thanks alot amigo!
You can try this one:
ip firewall filter add chain=forward src-address=0.0.0.0 dst-address=0.0.0.0 protocol=tcp p2p=all-p2p connection-limit=150,32 action=drop
Good luck ;)
 
User avatar
djape
Member
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: Serbia

Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:18 pm

Hehe, well done cibernet
I couldn't help im better ;)
I drink like a pirate and smoke like a hippie...
 
cibernet
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: Marcos Juárez, Córdoba, Argentina
Contact:

Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:49 pm

Hehe, well done cibernet
I couldn't help im better ;)
Thanks djape, BTW do you really want to catch 350 Mbits in the hotel room at MUM :D :wink: just joking :P

Regards
José Ignacio Acosta
MikroTik Consultant IDAR0001
Mikronet

Movile: +54 9 3472-624722
Email/Msn: info[at]mikronet.com.ar
 
KimC
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Denmark

Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:38 pm

Hey Guys ! You are missing something...

I have made a 2.9.12 upgrade as well on "half" a radio chain (two out of four hops).

On 2.9.11 I had a ping of 4 - 5 ms to the gateway (with a load of 6 - 8 Mbps and all links in good condition on 5Ghz turbo). Now the pings average on 11 - 15 ms, which is the same we had before - deep into the internet.

The upgraded links seems to be a bit more stable in signal, but the upgrade definately had a negative impact - especially for the gamers.

We are NOT going to upgrade any more routers before this experimental wireless package is under control again ! However, I have considered the possibility, that 2.9.11 and 2.9.12 is slightly incompatible ???

Best regards
Kim C
Djurs, DK
 
KimC
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Denmark

Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:53 pm

I followed my idea about incompatibility between 2.9.11 and 12. It was completely wrong !

After upgrading the last two links to x.12, the chain became useless. Ping in the range 200 - 500 ms, dropped links, kernel faliures etc.

After disabling the wireless package and enabling the legacy package, followed by a reboot on all units, things became normal again.

Please MT - lets have the x.13 upgrade NOW !!!

Kim C
 
YappaDappa
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:34 pm

Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:38 am

well, implemented the recommended filters. Works like a charm. Thanks man!

But it didn't resolve my wireless issues. Ping times are all over the map, and page resolution is very slow. However, throughput seems to be right where I rate limit.

Tonight I am going to try downgrading a sector and evaluating performance. I'll let you all know. I am still leary of this 2.9.12 and the effects it has had on Prism cards w/senao CB3+ clients.

Cheers!
 
Jrslick22
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:25 am

Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:53 am

How close are the sectors physically located to each other? do you have channel separation?
 
raha
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:23 pm

please teach me

Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:51 am

i just want to know how to set management bandwith dynamicly so if my custumer have problem whne their trafic full they can ping with small reply.

could you tell me howt to set bandwith management in mikrotik altought i used simple queue or queue tree n what a different from both, thank you.



regards :D [/img]
 
raha
just joined
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:23 pm

please teach me

Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:51 am

i just want to know how to set management bandwith dynamicly so if my custumer have problem whne their trafic full they can ping with small reply.

could you tell me howt to set bandwith management in mikrotik altought i used simple queue or queue tree n what a different from both, thank you.



regards :D
 
wildbill442
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:29 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:36 pm

Another thing to consider is the amount of users on your collision domain. Implementing VLANs or routers to break up collision domains will definately improve performance.
 
YappaDappa
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:34 pm

Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:16 am

I understand collision domains a bit. Are you suggesting using vlans per routerboard or per user? Isn't it impossible if ultimately all connections reach a single backhaul?
 
YappaDappa
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:34 pm

Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:40 am

well, after a week of using traffic shaping for P2P, I am going to drop it. I find that while bandwidth is preserved, performance for everyone is poor. For instace, on bandwith tests, I find the results deviate by 20-30% when enabled, and only 5% when not enabled.

What a bummer. Could it be I have too many queues? I have one per customers.

CPU utilization never exceeds 55%
 
shielder
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: Indonesia

Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:24 pm

Have u torched the packet on your wireless link? Sometimes, it's because of some kind of broadcasting (ex. port 137-139 or 4133), this kinds of packet would kill your performance.

Next u should check on the channel, try changing channel on your wireless link, will it do better?

it's better to have your bandwidth queuing on a powerful pc rather than on the RB (because of the small processor in it).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Zacharias and 28 guests