FlexQoS FlexQoS 1.2.4 - Flexible QoS Enhancement Script for Adaptive QoS

[el pescador]

Hi Dave.
I am using the development version. I noticed a few differences in the traffic control parameters.
Can you go into a bit of detail your thinking? For example i noticed the quantum figure is less than before. Would a high quantum figure affect udp?
Just interested as when testing i like to give feedback to gamers (FIFA).

With the dev version i have noticed an improvement in response even on Warzone. I have changed nothing else my end. Obviously this is early testing so cant say for sure your changes helped.

 

[dave14305]

Hi Dave.
I am using the development version. I noticed a few differences in the traffic control parameters.
Can you go into a bit of detail your thinking? For example i noticed the quantum figure is less than before. Would a high quantum figure affect udp?
Just interested as when testing i like to give feedback to gamers (FIFA).

With the dev version i have noticed an improvement in response even on Warzone. I have changed nothing else my end. Obviously this is early testing so cant say for sure your changes helped.

I basically just borrowed ideas from Merlin's traditional QoS implementation. If bandwidth is less than 50 Mbit, use a smaller quantum for fq_codel. I only did it for the direction having the lower bandwidth (usually upload), but Merlin seems to apply it to both up and download interfaces.

Also if using my fq_codel option, I let the minimum burst/cburst drop to 1600 bytes instead of 3200, since there is no longer a hard-coded 3200 minimum from the extra htb qdiscs that fq_codel replaced. Smaller bursts might alleviate latency for slower lines, since burst traffic isn't throttled at all.

 

[el pescador]

Thanks Dave.
Interesting.
I ran it with 900MBs (way over the max 200MBs the ps4 can use) up and down and noticed an instant difference with Warzone.
Previously the game was hard to control where i was aiming but now is more controllable.
FIFA so far has very little instances of slower gameplay than my opponent...early days on that.

Gonna run full tests next week with wireshark to compare with 4g again.

 

[Kingp1n]

Thanks Dave.
Interesting.
I ran it with 900MBs (way over the max 200MBs the ps4 can use) up and down and noticed an instant difference with Warzone.
Previously the game was hard to control where i was aiming but now is more controllable.
FIFA so far has very little instances of slower gameplay than my opponent...early days on that.

Gonna run full tests next week with wireshark to compare with 4g again.

@el pescador, thanks for this and please post your results.

Are you using Flex (developer) at default values under bandwidth or did you make any adjustments?

What's your setup like i.e. Gaming/Others as top priority? You mind sharing your setup, Im currently using:

Gaming
Others
W-f-H
Web
Video/Audio Streaming
File Transfer
L-f-H

Thanks again!

 

[lilstone87]

I need a little help. I noticed under gaming, it's including game patch downloads, as the last couple days had 70gb of data passed over gaming, not game downloads. My plan is to use the game downloads rule, however I have four consoles that are used often. So I need to include them all, I want to do it with one single rule.

So my plan is to give all four consoles static IP's. Something like 192.168.1.220-223. I am trying to remember how to include this into a rule I know it's something like 192.168.1.220/2*(?). Any help is appreciated, as I rather not have patch downloads randomly pushing data over the gaming category, while someone is actively playing a game.

EDIT: It seems 192.168.1.220/30, includes exactly what I need. Which is 192.168.1.220-223

 

[Kingp1n]

I need a little help. I noticed under gaming, it's including game patch downloads, as the last couple days had 70gb of data passed over gaming, not game downloads. My plan is to use the game downloads rule, however I have four consoles that are used often. So I need to include them all, I want to do it with one single rule.

So my plan is to give all four consoles static IP's. Something like 192.168.1.220-223. I am trying to remember how to include this into a rule I know it's something like 192.168.1.220/2*(?). Any help is appreciated, as I rather not have patch downloads randomly pushing data over the gaming category, while someone is actively playing a game.

Your IP range would be: 192.168.1.220/30. The one gaming rule will cover all 4 devices.

 

[lilstone87]

Your IP range would be: 192.168.1.220/30. The one gaming rule will cover all 4 devices.

Thanks I just edited my post, as I was able to find this info, right after I posted LOL.. I do appreciate the info though.

 

[dave14305]

I need a little help. I noticed under gaming, it's including game patch downloads, as the last couple days had 70gb of data passed over gaming, not game downloads. My plan is to use the game downloads rule, however I have four consoles that are used often. So I need to include them all, I want to do it with one single rule.

So my plan is to give all four consoles static IP's. Something like 192.168.1.220-223. I am trying to remember how to include this into a rule I know it's something like 192.168.1.220/2*(?). Any help is appreciated, as I rather not have patch downloads randomly pushing data over the gaming category, while someone is actively playing a game.

EDIT: It seems 192.168.1.220/30, includes exactly what I need. Which is 192.168.1.220-223

The Game Downloads rule is usually generic to treat all port 80/443 traffic from Gaming as Game Downloads. Would this not work for your case? Why does it need to be IP-specific?

 

[el pescador]

@el pescador, thanks for this and please post your results.

Are you using Flex (developer) at default values under bandwidth or did you make any adjustments?

What's your setup like i.e. Gaming/Others as top priority? You mind sharing your setup, Im currently using:

Gaming
Others
W-f-H
Web
Video/Audio Streaming
File Transfer
L-f-H

Thanks again!

 

[el pescador]

The udp is going under net control although not bothered by that.

 

[el pescador]

I have gaming top priority...

 

[dave14305]

The udp is going under net control although not bothered by that.

I'm bothered by that, since it shouldn't be happening, unless you have more conflicting rules past the end of your screenshot.

 

[S.claus]

@el pescador Did you end up messing with the burst values?

Anyway, those are my settings (right or wrong ?)

 

[lilstone87]

The Game Downloads rule is usually generic to treat all port 80/443 traffic from Gaming as Game Downloads. Would this not work for your case? Why does it need to be IP-specific?

I will look into this more. However I'm currently having a IP address issue with my AX88U, on merlin's latest build. As I tried giving my one console a static IP, via the router. After applying this setting on the router, and rebooting the console itself. The console still showed the old IP address, and not the static IP. I ended up giving it a static IP via the console, and oddly enough, the router, showed it using the old IP, and not the static one I gave it.

I also verified the network maps clients list showing me having 11 active devices, one of them being my PC, I am actively using connected to the router. Yet the DHCP Leases under system log, only shows 3 devices, and my PC isn't one of them. So it seems to me, there's something bugged with merlin's latest build on my AX88U. I need to dig into this more, as this is an issue, if my devices aren't getting proper IP's, especially when I'm assigning static IP's.

That rule might be fine.. I just need to test more. Personally I only want my gaming rule to include UDP, not TCP traffic. As I can tell you testing with COD, when in a active match, P2P type gaming data is going over UDP. Only TCP traffic that's passed, is stats type data, going back to them, for each game. Like K/D type data, which I could give no care in the world, for it getting priority.

 

[el pescador]

@el pescador Did you end up messing with the burst values?

View attachment 31317
Anyway, those are my settings (right or wrong ?)

No i couldnt change them. Dave changed the quantum figure on his dev script.
I put udp under priority only as those packets are time sensitive.

 

[DanNuke86]

@el pescador you've given me an idea to try out in regards to time sensitive UDP packets for gaming..

I've separated my UDP traffic from TCP traffic, assigning a rule for UDP under net control and another rule for TCP under gaming.

It may turn out to be snake oil, but worth a try in the name of testing/improving my home network for gaming. From the numerous articles I've read on improving gaming performance, the only real credible ones all point at getting latency/queue disciplining right..

 

[Kingp1n]

I just pushed an update to the develop branch to try to limit bursting and quantum on lower bandwidths. Give it a try and see if it gives better bloat testing.

flexqos develop

@dave14305, depending on the results from testers using the developer branch, if it does go final...will there be an option to toggle between the current final stable version (current bursting/bandwidth) settings or not?

I guess to be more clear, if I'm currently having no issues with the stable version as is. Will I be able to keep the current limit burst settings after the upgrade with the the new develop one if it goes final?

Thanks alot!!! I've yet to try the develop script due other commitments. Might end up loving the limited burst haha.

Hopefully can test tonite.

 

[capncybo]

When someone decides to: Add Well-Known iptables Rule
The default mark is: 000000
And when doing this...all other classifications & rules will still be properly applied
But any "Untracked" packets will be redirected according to recently added iptable rule... Correct???

Where I'm somewhat confused is... if you want to capture everything for a single IP.
Do you Leave the MARK as a BLANK or use Asterisks etc??

 

[dave14305]

Where I'm somewhat confused is... if you want to capture everything for a single IP.
Do you Leave the MARK as a BLANK or use Asterisks etc??

Leave it blank.

 

[dave14305]

@dave14305, depending on the results from testers using the developer branch, if it does go final...will there be an option to toggle between the current final stable version (current bursting/bandwidth) settings or not?

I guess to be more clear, if I'm currently having no issues with the stable version as is. Will I be able to keep the current limit burst settings after the upgrade with the the new develop one if it goes final?

No, I don't think so. There's not really a nice way to make it optional. You either have low bandwidth or you don't.