Request for feedback - SFQ queuing disciplines

[RMerlin]

I am considering removing SFQ completely from the Traditional QoS implementation, and always using fq_codel. This would help simplify the webui, and also the QoS related code by making it closer to upstream.

I will probably keep the overhead settings there, tho I might consider removing them from the webui, and only keeping them available through direct nvram manipulation, as quite frankly the impact of tweaking these parameters is very minimal, and it causes more questions than it does actually help improve performance.

Can anyone think of any GOOD reason why sfq might be necessary over fq_codel?

Thanks.

 

[Kingp1n]

I'm not expert at this but based from my own reading, fq_codel has shown to better than sfq in so many levels. Just my 2 cents if its worth anything. Sounds good to me !

 

[dave14305]

I think it's a good idea to abandon SFQ. HTB+fq_codel is hard to compete with for general use.

 

[bbunge]

I may have been the only Merlin user to regularly use SFQ with Adaptive QOS. Since it is not an option in the 386 code base to select SFQ, codel or fq_codel (due to Trend Micro changes) I guess I will not miss it in traditional QOS. (OK, so Adaptive QOS will still be based on SFQ? If Adaptive QOS ever begins to work correctly...)

 

[RMerlin]

(OK, so Adaptive QOS will still be based on SFQ?

Yes, nothing changing there, as only Trend Micro would be able to switch to a different queue scheduler. That code is outside even of Asus' control.

 

[RMerlin]

I'll be removing the qsched setting, and setting on fq_codel for Traditional QoS/Banwidth Limiter.

 

[Mistermoonlight]

A little bit late on this, but using traditional QOS on firmware 384.19 (rt-ac86u) (not bandwitdh limiter) to reduce buffer bloat from grade "C" to grade "A", i am consistenly getting better bandwith throughput when using sfq instead of fq_codel (and better stability). With sfq, i can reach near 100% throughput from my cable modem as compare with QOS off. With fq_codel, i am loosing around 5% bandwidth throughput (and throughput is less stable) with the exact same settings than sfq.

So i give my vote to keep that SFQ option in traditionnal QOS.

Thanks