On 21/09/17 01:50, Vieri Di Paola via Shorewall-users wrote: > Hi, > > My system has these values by default: > > # sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_available_congestion_control > net.ipv4.tcp_available_congestion_control = cubic reno htcp bbr cdg > # sysctl net.core.default_qdisc > net.core.default_qdisc = pfifo_fast > # sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control > net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control = cubic > > Some suggest to switch to either bbr or cdg. > > Would the following settings make any difference performance-wise on a > shorewall router? > # sysctl net.core.default_qdisc=fq > # sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control=bbr > > Should shorewall traffic shaping be configured and enabled with > TC_ENABLED=Simple and at least one interface in shorewall-tcinterfaces? > > Or does the bbr tcp congestion control have nothing to do with traffic > shaping per se?
BBR TCP congestion control and traffic shaping are largely orthogonal, although, you could likely limit BBR's effectiveness by doing traffic shaping badly. (Although you can limit the effectiveness of other congestion control algorithms by doing traffic shaping badly, too.) BBR is supposed to make better use of your bandwidth by actually testing what it can send and keeping the rate close to that. At work, we've deployed it on selected servers (although, not in conjunction with Shorewall traffic shaping) and found it effective; I've heard of others who say it makes things worse, or does nothing at all. There is no point deploying BBR on routers; it is the TCP endpoint where BBR needs to be enabled; the end sending the most data will benefit the most. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
