On this thread over here, an otherwise pretty clueful user chose openwrt's qos-scripts over the sqm-scripts, because sqm-scripts had *higher ping loss*.
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=61634.msg251125#msg251125 (I note that both fq_codel enabled QoS systems outperformed streamboost by a lot, which I am happy about) wow. It never registered to me that users might make a value judgement based on the amount of ping loss, and in looking back in time, I can think of multiple people that have said things based on their perception that losing pings was bad, and that sqm-scripts was "worse than something else because of it." sqm-scripts explicitly *deprioritizes* ping. In particular, this reduces the impact of ping floods from ipv6 to your entire /64, or to your whole ipv4, fairly well. And I had made the point that prioritizing ping was a bad idea here (including some dripping sarcasm later in the piece). http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Wondershaper_Must_Die but wow, it never occurred to me - in all these years - that ping was the next core metric on simple tests. I can be really dumb. I use netperf-wrapper and tend to ignore most of the ping data, but certainly on some benchmarks we have published ping doesn't look as good as the other stuff, *because it is deprioritized below all the other traffic*. Not strictly rate limited - as some systems do by default, including openwrt, which is impossible to get right - just deprioritized.... How can we fix this user perception, short of re-prioritizing ping in sqm-scripts? -- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
