Sharing download bandwidth fairly AND efficiently... has to be a way?

[BCSteve]

What am I missing? There's got to be some way to properly share Internet bandwidth among my devices.

The QOS of my router allows me to specify a hard limit for a device, but this isn't efficient at all. Say I have a 10 Meg connection and I say computer A gets 50% and computer B gets 50%... that's fair, but that means each is limited to 5 Megs even when the other isn't on at all. Not efficient.

Upload works fine. I get to define priorities and the highest priority are guaranteed 50% (for example) but use all 100% when its available.

Why can't I do that with download?

I've searched and searched but I'm not really finding anything so I figure I just don't know what to search for.

To be clear... I want to guarantee that each device gets its share (which I define) at a minimum, but any given device can use "surplus" bandwidth if available.

 

[System Error Message]

what router are you using?

 

[BCSteve]

Asus RT-N56U, but I'm fully expecting I have to buy new hardware in order to do this... I know my router can't do it. So I started searching which ones could... and I'm finding nothing but "it isn't possible". It *has* to be possible, because even my lowly Asus can restrict Device X to Y%. If it can do that, then it should be possible (for some device with appropriate programming) to only restrict to Y% when/if other devices are also active.

 

[System Error Message]

Perhaps with 3rd party firmware but no consumer routers can do QoS well on stock compared to non consumer

 

[BCSteve]

What is "non consumer"?

 

[abailey]

Non consumer meaning professional or semi-pro. Some vendors are Ubiquiti, Mikrotik, Cisco Professional stuff. Things like Sophos, pfSense, and Untangle would also be included.
I use Untangle at home and it has a very good QOS/Bandwidth control module.

 

[BCSteve]

Well then.. with Untangle, could you do what I'm asking? Pretend you're sharing your Internet with your roommate and you want each to have guaranteed 50% but either can have up to 100%. Possible?

As I said, I never had an illusions that my Asus would do the job. The whole point of the research I'm doing is to get the right hardware.

edit: I just checked out Untangle... I don't think I'm interested in paying a monthly fee, so unless I'm missing something I don't think that would be a viable option for me.

 

[L&LD]

If I'm understanding the thread properly, the RT-AC56U or higher will do at least the basics of what you need with the Adaptive QoS method it provides.

 

[abailey]

Well then.. with Untangle, could you do what I'm asking? Pretend you're sharing your Internet with your roommate and you want each to have guaranteed 50% but either can have up to 100%. Possible?

As I said, I never had an illusions that my Asus would do the job. The whole point of the research I'm doing is to get the right hardware.

edit: I just checked out Untangle... I don't think I'm interested in paying a monthly fee, so unless I'm missing something I don't think that would be a viable option for me.

Yes Untangle can do exactly like you want. Yes, there is a fee for the full version. The fee is $50 a year for home use. There is a free version of untangle but I don't know if the QOS/Bandwidth control is included in that version.

 

[BCSteve]

If I'm understanding the thread properly, the RT-AC56U or higher will do at least the basics of what you need with the Adaptive QoS method it provides.

Perhaps. I don't really think so from my understanding of their "Adaptive QoS" it just *sounds like it should* do what I want, but in effect I *think* it isn't anything more than a simpler QoS interface. I could be wrong... that's not the router I have. I've not been very happy with Asus products, so I'm not too inclined to jump back on that ship.

 

[BCSteve]

Yes Untangle can do exactly like you want. Yes, there is a fee for the full version. The fee is $50 a year for home use. There is a free version of untangle but I don't know if the QOS/Bandwidth control is included in that version.

I took a bit of a look at Untangle, but it seemed it was more of a firewall and I couldn't immediately see any indication that it would do what I needed, but I'll take your word for it and take another look. It seems that $50/yr is for a whole lot of features I don't need to get the one that I do.

 

[BCSteve]

Non consumer meaning professional or semi-pro. Some vendors are Ubiquiti, Mikrotik, Cisco Professional stuff. Things like Sophos, pfSense, and Untangle would also be included.
I use Untangle at home and it has a very good QOS/Bandwidth control module.

I hadn't before heard of Mikrotik. I checked them out and the first thing that caught my eye was the low prices! Digging in further, I see some suggestion that it could do what I want... but man they are short on documentation. I found enough vague examples that I think I might be able to manage it though. Cheap enough that I'll probably give it a try. Thanks for the lead.

 

[System Error Message]

If you wish to use mikrotik it is a learning curve and you have to look at CPU speeds. Everything up to 100Mb/s MIPS can handle. Above that you would want ARM and for more you're looking at PPC and even more you will need TILE. Thats for the embedded line.

 

[abailey]

I took a bit of a look at Untangle, but it seemed it was more of a firewall and I couldn't immediately see any indication that it would do what I needed, but I'll take your word for it and take another look. It seems that $50/yr is for a whole lot of features I don't need to get the one that I do.

I agree, if you are only going to use Untangle for the QOS there are probably better solutions. Untangle can be used in router mode or bridged mode. Bridge mode if you already have a router. I use it in router mode. If you want to read about its QOS features look here: http://wiki.untangle.com/index.php/QoS
If you want to look around at an Untangle demo go here: http://demo.untangle.com/webui/startPage.do

I am not trying to sell you on Untangle, it is just one of the easiest systems to set up that have QOS like you need. There are many others that can do what you need also.

 

[BCSteve]

Learning curves are fun.

I did see, from reading, that > 100 Mb/s I'd run into trouble with the lower end mikrotik... but seeing as though 100 Mb/s is the highest available here, I didn't really think that was going to be a problem. I'm currently on a 15/1 until they finish installing fibre (which is capped at 100/20 here). Don't you think the RB2011 could cut it?

According to the test results at the bottom of the product page, it should be more than sufficient, no? Even their tiny hEX Lite gets a throughput of 493Mbps if the MTU is large enough.

 

[System Error Message]

Its not the MTU because internet will always be at 1500MTU. What matters do is what the router has if you are going with embedded as you can actually buy the OS for use on x86. So get one that fits what you need but the RB2011 is actually very old (still has some 100mb/s ports) and has no 5Ghz wifi. They have 2 types of MIPS CPUs used (see their firmware download page) and various models. Some of the RB9xx boards have a MIPS CPU that would be faster than the one in the AC66U and some are very configurable in hardware that if wired ports isnt an issue some models have SFP, mini PCIe, wifi, usb (not many uses for it currently, so no printer sharing), SIM slot and integrated wifi. Some dont have mini PCIe since they do sell mini PCIe wifi cards for their routers if you want to upgrade wifi but you cant use other cards with it and you cant use their cards in other stuff (drivers).

If i remember the hEX lite is basically a budget model. Just remember that some of their MIPS based routers can do things like exclude a port from the switch chip so you can get a bit more throughput. If it has gigabit ethernet ports and you just want a dedicated router mikrotik is one of the best for it aside from x86 and higher end cisco, juniper, hp, etc but other than x86 mikrotik is basically the cheapest of the choices. Ubiquiti's routers arent as configurable as mikrotik or even any x86 linux/unix distro because they restrict some things so you "dont shoot yourself in the foot" and rely on hardware acceleration which is an irony because their customers use features which hardware acceleration cant be used for. Their performance tests are only meant for if you plan to use ubiquiti routers as a layer 3 switch. QoS wise Ubiquiti is also capable and their newer dual core budget MIPS based routers can also be considered but you will have to learn a lot of CLI instead of using GUI because Ubiquiti doesnt show all you can do whereas mikrotik does (except for scripting) so their GUI can sometimes be overwhelming.

for NAT performance for mikrotik look at the routing performance with 5 rules. When you add filters QoS and such the 25 rules may be an indication. As far as LAN goes performance is not an issue so only look at the 1500MTU size. If the hEX lite has the hardware features you need than it would be suitable for you. There is 1 brand of gaming routers that uses mikrotik but they have their own interface.

I have both mikrotik and ubiquiti so when it comes to routers mikrotik is basically a really good dedicated router. Ubiquiti is more versatile that it lets you install debian software that has been compiled for MIPS but it is not as good as a router like mikrotik. In my setup my router is mikrotik and my ubiquiti router runs squid with the extra stuff.

If you feel you dont need really good wifi but you just want basic wifi than you can use the RB2011. Just avoid mikrotik switches.

 

[BCSteve]

I don't need Wifi at all and in general I've been narrowing my search to wired-only. The RB2011 comes in both flavors. I've got Engenius WAPs for wifi and they've been working solidly.

The hEX lite is absolutely their bargain basement offering... it is cheaper than the OS license it comes with! But no gigabit ports at all. I was actually wondering if that matters... if I have WAN on port 1 and a Gigabit switch on port 2 and all my devices attached to the switch... my LAN is gigabit or not? I'm not sure why that's confusing me. My WAN options max out at 100Mbps so I don't think I need gigabit ports anyway. Still, I think I'd prefer the RB2011 for the metal case, greater RAM, etc and it does have 5 gig ports.

Why avoid Mikrotik switches? I thought the CRS125-24G-1S-IN looked pretty bad-butt. I was considering it but I'm a little confused because the spec's seem to state that the wired-only version can't be configured with a WAN port at all, while the wireless can (not sure how wifi has any impact on that at all).

 

[System Error Message]

The CRS is the best they have and i have the best CRS they have and i can tell you that its not quite ready yet. Hopefully their firmware 7 will add some crucial basic features but not it it even lacks STP on the switch chip which can lead to hangs from routing even if there is no looped wiring. I myself have experienced this hang multiple times where the OS is still fine but theres no network so i end up having to reboot the switch.

Technically you dont need gigabit ports now but it can be useful in the future. If your WAN is 100Mb/s and your LAN is also 100Mb/s than the max you can get is about 80-90Mb/s. If your modem, WAN and LAN all use gigabit and you have 100Mb/s allocated you will be able to use that fully.

CRS switches have all ports switched so CPU routing has very poor throughput. The switch chip has 1Gb/s to CPU so whether it is bidirectional traffic or only 1 direction the maximum that can travel between the CPU and switch is 1Gb/s. Other routers like the RB450G and RB850gx2 (you really should consider this) have the typical 5 port switch router but the WAN port (eth0) has logic that allows it to either be connected to switch chip or directly to CPU. This improves performances and allows layer 1 and 2 seperation from your LAN since instead of a total of 1Gb/s bidirectional traffic you can now have 2Gb/s of bidirectional traffic flowing between eth0 and switch. Ofcourse the router isnt fast enough to do NAT at that speed but the RB850gx2 may be able to. The RB850gx2 uses a dual core PPC so not only does it have way better throughput than the RB2011 it will also do VPN faster and it has encryption acceleration for encryption too which helps for VPN and a variety of other related uses. The RB850gx2 is the successor to the RB450G though the RB450G is also a valid choice as it has the same hardware features just uses a single core mips at 680Mhz overclockable to 800Mhz. If you think SFP will be useful than take a look at the RB2011 or even the RB3011. The RB3011 has 2Gb/s links between switch chips (it has 2 chips) and CPU instead of the traditional 1Gb/s. It uses a dual core ARM CPU the IPQ8064 that is used in some routers such as google hub and some other interesting products. It may be using qualcomm kraits as it has better throughput than broadcom's dual core ARM A9. Some of the RB2011 have lcd screen and the RB3011 also does have it which is pretty cool.

 

[sfx2000]

If you wish to use mikrotik it is a learning curve and you have to look at CPU speeds. Everything up to 100Mb/s MIPS can handle. Above that you would want ARM and for more you're looking at PPC and even more you will need TILE. Thats for the embedded line.

Wtihout getting all long winded and sleepy, and most folks miss what you say

Most folks have QOS upside down - it's not about limiting bandwidth, it's about making reservations when things get crowded...

One of the Asus devs concurred with this, so this pretty much is how Asus does it - and again - most get it wrong...

 

[sfx2000]

And FWIW - HFSC is a pretty darn good scheduler - meets 90-95 percent of most folks needs...

codel/fq_codel - it's pretty close as a scheduler as well

again - most folks don't understand how the knobs/levels work with these schedulers...

take it from me, I've designed gateways/routers - while some might read spec sheets and espouse the benefits of a TILE processor, you don't need that... a 10 year old MIPS processor on a WRT54G can do a decent job at QOS if you let it - or a RaspPI even...

Heck, if you leave things alone, the basic scheduler in OpenWRT or pfSense will do the job just fine, and then you build in the reservations as a whitelist - not blacklist others, that's not how QoS works.

Make it hard, or make it simple - prioritize clients, much easier... that way when little Johnny get's his DLC for his PS4 game, Mom and Dad have priority on either their applications, MAC addresses, and/or ports - and when little Sally's iCloud backup, if she's not a priority, she also gets best effort after Mom and Dad.

sheesh...