1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

WRT320N QoS, Traffic Shaping, Usenet Help?

Discussion in 'Tomato Firmware' started by rspierz, Jan 30, 2012.

  1. rspierz

    rspierz Networkin' Nut Member

    Hello all,

    I am very interested in tomatos QoS and have been using it for about 6 months now. It has worked great for me for the most part. One thing I would like to know about is if there is some way to allocate dedicated band width on an ethernet port. The reason I ask is because I have an WRT320N with one of toastmans latest builds and cannot find such thing.

    My setup is that in the house there are 4 cable runs to the tomato router and then router to the modem. The connection speed is 16mbps down and 750kbps up with an average ping of 15ms. So basically why im asking for Ethernet port QoS is because I have a room mate who recently got a usenet account with 30-60 connections and I am not sure how to keep it controlled as online games such as Xbox live do not get the required bandwidth and latency they need.
     
  2. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

    I'm not quite sure I understand your problem. Usenet uses TCP port 119 and if it uses SSL it will use TCP port 563. So adding a filter and putting the traffic into a lower class with less bandwidth should solve your problem.
     
  3. rspierz

    rspierz Networkin' Nut Member

    Yup you're right, and I do have those ports in my QoS classifications, however when you have 30-60 of those port connections as shown by "transfer rates" it simply cannot allocate enough bandwidth and/or latency to other time sensitive applications such as xbox live and skype (I know skype is hard either way)
     
  4. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

    I don't think this has to do anything with the amount of connections. Any P2P-application is far worse. Maybe you should take some screenshots of your QoS-configuration and post them here.
     
  5. rspierz

    rspierz Networkin' Nut Member

  6. Toastman

    Toastman Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    As an interim measure, you can limit the speed of that client by it's MAC address.

    I don't see port 119 in your QOS classifications ??

    Lastly, QOS won't usually work very well if incoming bandwidth limits aren't implemented. I would advise upgrading to the latest version, where the whole QOS system's behaviour is changed by the addition of a better ingress system.
     
  7. rspierz

    rspierz Networkin' Nut Member

    I feel honoured that you replied to me :). Ok umm sorry to be that guy but which is the latest version for the WRT320N? Also I included port 119. Capture3.PNG
     
  8. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

    Ok, that's what I'd recommend you do:

    Your Skype filter which is #4 is too high up. This filter is overmatching which means it will also catch http traffic and some other stuff, so you should put it down. It's best to put it behind all the http related filters so you should make the filter #19. The best way to match skype traffic is to tell Skype which port to use, though, but that's not always possible.

    As Toastman already said you need to shape inbound traffic.

    As I'm seeing on your screenshot, the sum of your outbound rates (the left values) exceed 100%. There is no check for that in the GUI yet, so please do this yourself.
     
  9. Toastman

    Toastman Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    If that's 7494 you're using, then you already have the better QOS system.
     
  10. rspierz

    rspierz Networkin' Nut Member

    Ok so I upgraded again to 7495 anyways and fixed what you guys said to do, I havent had time to test it out but here are some screenshots of the current setup if you guys would verify it. I also ran into a bit of a problem with an IP tables error (shown in screen shot). I have one general question about the inbound bandwith, why should it be 15% less then the max? I had it set to max before because I liked getting my max bandwidth but you guys know much more about QoS ;).Back to my orginal question is there an option to dedicate bandwidth per port when under load?

    Capture.PNG Capture2.PNG Capture3.PNG Capture.PNG Capture2.PNG Capture3.PNG Capture.PNG Capture.PNG Capture2.PNG Capture3.PNG
     
  11. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

    Concerning the iptables error:
    To assess what's going on I'd like to ask you to paste the iptables-script. Go to Tools/System and then put
    in the box and execute. I don't think there is sensitive data in the output, but please look around. When you think it's ok, paste the output here or on pastebin and don't remove any lines because we are looking for line 81.

    There needs to be a safety margin of ~15% because right now the kernel has no way of knowing how much bandwidth is actually being used.

    No, there is no option to dedicate bandwidth to an ethernet port when under load. If you really want to limit your roommate you could do this with a MAC filter which you already had for your xboxes. (Why are those filters gone, btw? I've never worked with them but I think they should work.) The disadvantage for your roommate would be that he didn't get proper QoS because then all his traffic ends up in one class and i.e. he can't surf the web while downloading properly. The better solution to this problem is to just have the right filters and one last thing: you probably shouldn't let the FileXfer or Media class get 100%. My recommendation would be around 80-85% but feel free to experiment. This should keep all the other traffic snappy.
     
  12. rspierz

    rspierz Networkin' Nut Member

    Thanks for the help Porter, I have figured out the IP tables by restarting the modem hahaha, must have been a bug because I change my network to 10.0.0.1 and the IP tables were stuck on the default 192.168.1.1 network. Alright that makes sense about the 15% margin thanks for clearing that up.

    I will probably put the mac filters on again for the xboxes (would having that and the one that is there already be detrimental? or is that ok?). I dont think I will use a MAC filter for my room mate, I did have the thought of using the banwidth limiter, and set the rate to 4000 and ceiling to 160000 so that under load it would limit his connection to 4000kbps? I'm not that familiar with the bandwidth limiter yet. I agree with your recommendation for the fileXfer and media classs so I will implement and report back.
     
  13. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

    I don't know how much bandwidth xboxes use, but I think it's unlikely that they need more than is available.

    I don't know how the B/W Limiter works, I just know that the QoS-system and the limiter are two seperate systems. You should just see how it goes first and then think about using the limiter.

    I forgot to mention one really important thing: you should limit your default class which is probably P2P/Bulk to something less than 100%, too. Try 50%.
     
  14. rspierz

    rspierz Networkin' Nut Member

    xbox uses little bandwith about 20kpbs onaverage id say, but if you want to host games like call of duty you might need 100kbps. I will implement that as well for the p2p. Thank you for all your help porter! will report later tonight.
     
  15. rspierz

    rspierz Networkin' Nut Member

    So I have tested it out and as it seems, I get 2 bars out of 4 possible.. xbox live isn't unplayable but its not overly smooth. In addition to that my room mate is now complaining that skype is terrible and he cant have a call without intrruption. Hmm any thoughts?
     
  16. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

    The recent Tomato versions have several traffic monitoring capabilities and just to make sure everything is going as expected you could use the IP traffic monitor and the QoS pie charts. Check if the usenet traffic of roommate gets classified correctly.

    One overall thought is that it's possible that you don't get the same bandwidth at any point in time over a day so your limits could be wrong. Try to check this with speedtests.

    You should probably put skype and xbox in two different classes, so they don't interfere with one another. Right now I'm looking at your outbound rates for VoIP/Game: 25-30%, which seems really tight. One skype conversation (just voice) uses about 128kbit, with all the overhead it probably use alot more, adding your 20kbit of your xbox this class probably is overlimit most of the time. For your xbox class I'd suggest at least 40 or 80kbit if both are running and at least 160kbit for skype and each conversation (left values).

    Skype traffic doesn't want to be classified by L7-filters so you should think about configuring Skype to use a specific port in the free port range and filter just by port and not the L7-filter.
     
  17. rspierz

    rspierz Networkin' Nut Member

    So I have tried your solutions and they seem to be working much nicer. One thing I hav noticed is that the default settings in the QoS classifications has xbox live looking at the source rather then destination, when I switched that it worked much better. I used 2 classed and now it does work better for both skype and xbox live, I get around 3 bars when my roommate is using his usenet. Thanks for all your help again Porter!
     
  18. Planiwa

    Planiwa LI Guru Member

    FWIW, last week I saw the entire bandwidth consumed by what had been classified by L7 as SkypeOut, but what was actually massive multi-peer download. Using specific ports for Skype seems like a good approach.
     
  19. Toastman

    Toastman Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    Yes. The "skypeout" L7 filter is really almost useless. There's no easy answer for us to classify skypeout when we have no control over LAN clients.
     
  20. rspierz

    rspierz Networkin' Nut Member

    Just curious what port you guys would use for Skype? I dont want to choose one that could be used by a different application/protocol/etc.
     
  21. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

Share This Page