Thanks very much for the information! (I've been reading 20+ page threads on Ubiquity's forum looking for messages that you've posted)
I'm going to be testing an EdgeRouter X which doesn't support hardware acceleration so I don't think I have to worry about TCP offload (?). (I'd like to use my existing x86 hardware but I can't find a solid router OS that I like) I'll also go ahead and enable fq_codel on my downstream and hope for the best. Thanks again, John > On Feb 16, 2016, at 2:19 PM, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:06 AM, John Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >> Does anybody have any suggested quantum/target values for a cable modem >> connection of 25/3? (25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up) > > I would use a quantum 300 for the up. There is no need to fiddle with > the target values below 2.5mbits. > > The edgerouter has issues with tcp offloads enabled. If you are not > using the other ports as routed ports, you can disable gro offloads on > all ports for lower latency at a huge cost in local bandwidth (this is > something that cake will fix if we can get ubnt to ship it one day. > http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/CakeTechnical ) > > >> >> It looks like the defaults for Ubiquity EdgeRouter should work but I'm not >> sure if I can achieve better performance by tuning anything? > > Make a change, measure with a good benchmark like flent's rrul test. > >> Also, should I enable fq_codel on my downstream or only my upstream? > > Both are severely overbuffered on cablemodems and CMTSes running at this > speed. > > http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/fixing-bufferbloat-on-comcasts-blast.html > > https://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/howto/sqm > > >> Thanks! >> >> - John >> _______________________________________________ >> Bloat mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
