Hello all! So as not to inundate the entire list with a huge email, I have
put together a web page that
explains my situation and problem in detail. Here is a quick summary:
Internet
|
|
|
CCAonline Router (Cisco)
|
|
|
(eth0)
Master CCAonline AP
HTB Bandwidth control
(wlan0)
|
|
|
================== / / /
/|\ \ \ \
/ / / / | \ \ \ \
/ / / / | \ \ \ \
(Lots of Wireless Clients) | \
/ \
/ \
AP1 AP2
/ \
/ \
======= ======
/ /|\ \ / /|\ \
/ / | \ \ / / | \ \
Other Wireless Other Wireless
Clients Clients
Up until a few weeks ago, we had been using kernel version 2.4.18 and
CBQ.init to control bandwidth. I set that up quite a long time ago, and only
vaguely understood bandwidth control when I did, but it seemed to work well
enough. A few weeks ago, the hard drive began to fail in our master AP. I
had been working on designing its replacement anyway, so I was able to make
it limp along until I got ''Son of Master AP'' up and running.
The problem we
have now is that QOS is pretty crappy. I''ve read the LARTC HOWTO, and
pretty
much the entire docum.org site. I feel like I have a relatively good handle
on the subject matter, but I''m not able to achieve good QOS.
I''m mainly
looking for advice and input on how best to fairly share the available
bandwidth among the subscribers to our service. Ultimately we will want a
higher priority level for business clients, but that can wait until the
basics are under control. All details are available from
http://wireless.ccaonline.com/lartcThanks, everyone! This is a great
list!Curtis V. Schleich,CCA and CCAonline,cvslist (at) ccaonline (dot) com
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Not sure how the end of that email got mangled, but here''s the corrected URL. Sorry for the problem! http://wireless.ccaonline.com/lartc Thanks, everyone! This is a great list! Curtis V. Schleich, CCA and CCAonline, cvslist (at) ccaonline (dot) com _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
On Monday 15 September 2003 19:14, Curtis V. Schleich wrote:> Hello all! So as not to inundate the entire list with a huge email, I have > put together a web page that > explains my situation and problem in detail. Here is a quick summary: > > Internet > > > > CCAonline Router (Cisco) > > > > (eth0) > Master CCAonline AP > HTB Bandwidth control > (wlan0) > > > > ==================> / / / /|\ \ \ \ > / / / / | \ \ \ \ > / / / / | \ \ \ \ > (Lots of Wireless Clients) | \ > / \ > / \ > AP1 AP2 > / \ > / \ > ======= ======> / /|\ \ / /|\ \ > / / | \ \ / / | \ \ > Other Wireless Other Wireless > Clients ClientsCan you try to add "quantum 1500" or maybe 4000 to each class? Stef -- stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.openprojects.net _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Trying 4000 right now, I''ll try 1500 after I have a chance to see if 4000 makes any difference. I have put new commands and stats (which I will update periodically over the next few hours) at the http://wireless.ccaonline.com/lartc/ site. On initial examination it does not seem to be making any significant difference. I''ve still got very laggy ping times, which I did not have when we were using CBQ. During the HTB research, I did discover that my CBQ setup was probably weird. I had a class for each user directly off the root, and the total rates FAR exceeded the available bandwidth. So from what I read it was probably pretty whacked, but I always seemed to have stable pings under 10ms. These are all over the map (or graph as the case may be). Anything else?? Thanks!! CVS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stef Coene" <stef.coene@docum.org> To: "Curtis V. Schleich" <cvslist@ccaonline.com>; <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [LARTC] QOS problems switching from CBQ to HTB.> On Monday 15 September 2003 19:14, Curtis V. Schleich wrote: > > Hello all! So as not to inundate the entire list with a huge email, Ihave> > put together a web page that > > explains my situation and problem in detail. Here is a quick summary: > > > > Internet > > > > > > > > CCAonline Router (Cisco) > > > > > > > > (eth0) > > Master CCAonline AP > > HTB Bandwidth control > > (wlan0) > > > > > > > > ==================> > / / / /|\ \ \ \ > > / / / / | \ \ \ \ > > / / / / | \ \ \ \ > > (Lots of Wireless Clients) | \ > > / \ > > / \ > > AP1 AP2 > > / \ > > / \ > > ======= ======> > / /|\ \ / /|\ \ > > / / | \ \ / / | \ \ > > Other Wireless Other Wireless > > Clients Clients > Can you try to add "quantum 1500" or maybe 4000 to each class? > > Stef > > -- > stef.coene@docum.org > "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" > http://www.docum.org/ > #lartc @ irc.openprojects.net >_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 09:00, Curtis V. Schleich wrote:> Trying 4000 right now, I''ll try 1500 after I have a chance to see if 4000 > makes any difference. I have put new commands and stats (which I will > update periodically over the next few hours) at the > http://wireless.ccaonline.com/lartc/ site. On initial examination it does > not seem to be making any significant difference. I''ve still got very laggy > ping times, which I did not have when we were using CBQ.just a red herring for you, ;-), but you may need to use some arbitrated channel access mechanism for this many users off one AP, viz WiCCP, otherwise channel contention will become an issue. This will likely cause high ping times. /steve _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Agreed, but just a few weeks ago, using CBQ, things were calm and stable. I can check to see if our overall data transfer is up from a month ago. Thanks for the fish! CVS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Wright" <paua@quicksilver.net.nz> To: "Curtis V. Schleich" <cvslist@ccaonline.com> Cc: "Stef Coene" <stef.coene@docum.org>; <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [LARTC] QOS problems switching from CBQ to HTB.> On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 09:00, Curtis V. Schleich wrote: > > Trying 4000 right now, I''ll try 1500 after I have a chance to see if4000> > makes any difference. I have put new commands and stats (which I will > > update periodically over the next few hours) at the > > http://wireless.ccaonline.com/lartc/ site. On initial examination itdoes> > not seem to be making any significant difference. I''ve still got verylaggy> > ping times, which I did not have when we were using CBQ. > > > just a red herring for you, ;-), but you may need to use some arbitrated > channel access mechanism for this many users off one AP, viz WiCCP, > otherwise channel contention will become an issue. This will likely > cause high ping times. > > > /steve > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
On Monday 15 September 2003 23:00, Curtis V. Schleich wrote:> Trying 4000 right now, I''ll try 1500 after I have a chance to see if 4000 > makes any difference. I have put new commands and stats (which I will > update periodically over the next few hours) at the > http://wireless.ccaonline.com/lartc/ site. On initial examination it does > not seem to be making any significant difference. I''ve still got very > laggy ping times, which I did not have when we were using CBQ. During the > HTB research, I did discover that my CBQ setup was probably weird. I had a > class for each user directly off the root, and the total rates FAR exceeded > the available bandwidth. So from what I read it was probably pretty > whacked, but I always seemed to have stable pings under 10ms. These are > all over the map (or graph as the case may be).Can put your cbq setup on your web-server? So we can compare.... Stef -- stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.openprojects.net _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/