> I was running Butch's script with PCQ queues but I started wondering about > "buffer bloat" (yeah, I follow NANOG too) on the router. I thought about > trying RED on the outbound queue since if packets are dropped and resent on > our wireless network it's no biggie. Our wireless network is way overkill as > far as our bandwidth needs. But I didn't want dropped packets on our inbound > side because I didn't want to waste any of our precious satellite bandwidth. > So I kept PCQ queues there.
Before jumping into the conclusion that your network is overkill for your usage, you should first graph it in RX+TX pps if it's Wi-Fi, or RX pps and TX pps otherwise. Ideally you should also graph airtime % as well, but that's not a MIB-II standard item... AirControl might do it with UBNT gear. > It seems like it made things work better but I never know for sure because > our satellite bandwidth is oversold and what we get at any given moment is > effected by what the other users who are on this same bandwidth are doing. > > Does anyone else mix queue types like that? Is this a dumb idea? I think it's not dumb, but the cause/effect relations on TCP make choosing which queue type to use in each direction a more complex decision than that. Trying more combinations might be good. One thing I would consider doing is using different queue types on each direction depending on packet size. TCP packets going outbound but have low size are just ACKs of incoming TCP data, and the other way around. non-TCP packets would also have a different QoS strategy as it's usually non-responsive to packet loss or delay variations. Rubens -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
