Is there any reason not to use SFQ instead of PFIFO? On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Justin Wilson - MTIN <li...@mtin.net> wrote:
> SFQ works the best for speeds about 4 megs (thats not scientific on the 4 > megs). PFIFO is more random than SFQ. I always tell folks there is more > math involved with SFQ. And more math in figuring out bits is better > right? hehe. > > Seriously, SFQ performs better. You just don’t see how much better it > performs until you are queing multi megs of traffic. > Justin Wilson > j...@mtin.net > > --- > http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO > xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth > > http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman > Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric > > On Sep 30, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've wondered about that too, back when we first started doing PPPoE with > MT, we were doing far slower connections, but the settings are still the > same... it's entirely possible that a different Queue type would work > better at the sort of speeds we're doing these days. > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > >> It may be something everyone should be doing everywhere, I don't know. >> It's possible, perhaps even likely that the MT default PPPoE settings >> aren't optimal. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >> *To: *af@afmug.com >> *Sent: *Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:41:56 AM >> >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Queue Types >> >> The advice may or may not apply. But if your issue is between Ubnt/MT I >> don't know if I'd take ePMP documentation to be fixing the issue. >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: >> >>> Bad advice to assume that if you're not using ePMP then it doesn't >>> apply. I don't know, but perhaps that's a general best practice that we >>> should be using across more vendors. Cambium sure isn't going to tell you >>> how to tweak your UBNT wireless etup. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *"Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >>> *To: *af@afmug.com >>> *Sent: *Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:35:05 AM >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Queue Types >>> >>> >>> Well if you're not using ePMP that documentation really doesn't apply... >>> >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matt <matt.mailingli...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Saw in the ePMP knowledge base that they recommend changing queue type >>>> from default to wireless-default. >>>> >>>> In one of my mikrotik pppoe servers I look and see default is pfifo >>>> with 50 packets. Wireless-default is sfq with 5s and 1514bytes. >>>> >>>> What would advantages or reason for the change? >>>> >>>> I don't user epmp yet but on my PPPoE server I frequently have >>>> complaints from users that have there upstream maxed out by one thing >>>> or another complain about there connection. I wander if switching to >>>> sfq might help there? Or it might simply max my Mikrotik CPUs out. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
