hI Dave hi list,
On Dec 14, 2013, at 07:26 , Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > one of the things that makes me happy with all-up testing is that > occasionally after completely blowing up my own work, I get to > critique fresh work that isn't mine, in an area with which I have no > expertise, with gratitude that I don't have to figure out the answer. > :) > > So I spent some time clicking wildly all over the AQM gui webpage to > see what I could break. > > 1) the aqm gui code doesn't work due to a bug at line 66. > sc:depends("advanced", "1"). > sc has to be initialized first, which happens later in the file. Extra > line removed in ceropackages, committed, pushed, you will need to do a > pull. Merge failure? > > 2) it's not clear to me we have to support both the stab and > htb_private methods of fixing htb's linklayer. It was important that > these be fixed for everyone else that uses htb, > but is one of these is faster than the other? I seem to recall one was > a calculated value in the kernel, the other some sort of table. Does > this choice need to be made by the > user? The two variants benchmarked? Jesper? So I just went ahead and hid htb_private for the time being (by commenting out the definition in aqm.lua, can only be reenabled by editing, this is not ideal, but at lease confusing than the situation before) > > 3) Clicking "advanced configuration" on and off toggles display of the > qdisc and qdisc script, and twiddling with the linklayer value brings > up all the extra DSL detail. Yea! > > ... and I think I was wrong in mentally visualizing the thing > > If these were made tabs [Basic, Queueing Discipline, Linklayer, > Priorities], there would be more room for explanatory text in > particular and better alignment with the > "look and feel" of the rest of the gui. Note that "priorities" is a > placeholder for somehow > bringing out something remotely similar to what openwrt's qos system > already does > and what AQM (ceroshaper? some other name is needed) does implicitly > with optimizing for dns and ntp. The tabs are in. Since "Priorities" would be empty it does not exist yet. Let's see how you like the rest... > > ECN enablement should be brought out in "Queueing discipline" via the > ALLECN variable. It seems likely ALLECN needs to have 4 states rather > than 3, which needs to also be fixed in the scripts. > > While I'm at it, perhaps having tabs for each physical interface is > not a horrible idea, > but I shudder to think of people rate-limiting their wifi in the hope > that that would help. > > ? > > 5) Adding a second interface shows @ge01 as an option, which isn't a > real interface, and se00 as an option and not the gw* or sw* > interfaces. Adding se00 with the default option > gives me an error > > One or more required fields have no value! > One or more required fields have no value! > One or more required fields have no value! > One or more required fields have no value! > > (and I'm pretty sure the aqm-scripts break even if this is correctly > written to the config file) > > 6) feel free to add your copyright to the code. :) > > I return now to figuring out why bringing up the wifi is so hosed. I > will probably be reverting the kernel, netifd, and other things, way, > way, way back to when they used to work. > > -- > Dave Täht > > Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: > http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel