> On 3 Feb, 2016, at 22:09, Rick Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 02/03/2016 11:22 AM, John Klimek wrote: >> I'm currently using pfaense which only supports codel and not >> fq_codel. Is there a big difference between them? Is it worth >> looking into using a different router? > > My simplistic understanding is fq_codel creates several/many different > queues, spreading flows across those queues and applying codel on each queue.
There *is* a big difference between fq_codel and plain codel. Simply put, the “fq” part of fq_codel is capable of mitigating inter-flow induced latency much more reliably than plain codel can. Codel in itself manages only intra-flow induced latency. Fq_codel maintains a separate codel instance per queue, so it also does a better job of applying the correct amount of congestion feedback to each flow, rather than a blanket amount over all traffic using the link. The difference is particularly marked when you are dealing with congestion-unresponsive traffic (which codel is inherently poor at managing), but is measurable and even noticeable even with standard TCP flows. - Jonathan Morton _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
