snowpro2000
join:2004-06-13
Canada
| Mikrotik queues accurate?
I have set up queues for a few customers.
Is the total download in the queue accurate?
Also, when I am at the sub (nano 2) I get around 4 meg download rate (speakeasy speed test)
When I look at the download rate in the queue, it never goes above 1800 bps.
thanks |
|
Inssomniak
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON | Dont use the queues to determine rate, use the interface rate, the queues, although reasonably accurate, its just an average, and updates slowly. If you sustained that 4mb for a long time, then it would eventually read 4mb. |
|
DiSdAiN
join:2007-08-25
Red Oak, TX | reply to snowpro2000
sounds like yoru queue isn't set up right, it should display accurate results. What firmware are you running? |
|
kewlkeed
Grouch
Premium
join:2005-02-05
Knowlton, QC
| reply to snowpro2000
I know there were some massive queuing issues with MT at one point. There was literally a few releases where it flat out didn't work at all. One fix I heard of was changing the "default-small" profile of the simple queues to "default" and poof it would start working again for no real reason.
But since that point I've also noticed they are not accurate. Setting things up exactly according to the manual (Their simple "emulate a 128kps line") on a bench doesn't even work properly.
I've given up much hope on the MT queuing scheme and I think they are waiting for the next revision to even bother fixing it.
--
Justin - DSLR resident grouch and Mr Negativity
TSI Fanboy - "Dontchya wish your 'net was hot like mine! Ohhh Dontchya!"
Have a nice day! |
|
snowpro2000
join:2004-06-13
Canada | reply to DiSdAiN
I am using 2.9.50 on the router only because it has been very stable and was affraid to upgrade.
Its pretty easy to setup so I don't know how I could screw that up..... |
|
Mike_27
Premium
join:2004-05-15
Gardiner, MT
| here try this:
/queue simple \
add name="simple-test" target-addresses=192.168.1.45/32 dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 \
interface=all parent=none direction=both priority=8 queue=default/default \
limit-at=0/0 max-limit=512000/512000 total-queue=default-small disabled=no
hth,
Mike |
|
epicproblem
join:2007-09-16
Sacramento, CA | reply to snowpro2000
hey snowpro,
What is your setup like? How do you like the NS2? |
|
thewisperer
Premium
join:2008-01-16
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| I have very small network.
I have spoken to people who have many ns2 and they say they rock. Let's hope they will rock for a long time.
That's hard to predict. But for the price (compared to Mikrotik cpe) if you have problems after a few years, you can replace them at low cost. They will have paid for themselves.
Mike_27: I am using winbox and my queues are set up just as you suggest. |
|
kewlkeed
Grouch
Premium
join:2005-02-05
Knowlton, QC
| reply to snowpro2000
One thing to also consider, when using queues, use it to shape traffic. Not to throttle clients.
While it IS possible to use to throttle clients (To give them different service levels, etc) it's not the best way because the load/job of doing the traffic throttling is now placed on your MT, as well as the traffic still passes over your AP and Backbone, only to be rejected at the MT.
The NS units have their own QoS settings for doing exactly that, and they work very very well. Using those settings takes all that traffic off your network and the load off the MT. Technically it's not the MT's job to be doing that, it should be used only for routing and doing QoS on the general traffic flow, not individual client traffic flows.
On the last 2.x version the queues should be working fine. I think the problems only came in on version 3.x.
--
Justin - DSLR resident grouch and Mr Negativity
TSI Fanboy - "Dontchya wish your 'net was hot like mine! Ohhh Dontchya!"
Have a nice day! |
|
snowpro2000
join:2004-06-13
Canada
| reply to epicproblem
As everyone says, they are cheap and reliable.
I wonder if the Loco will do as well.
It would allow us to lower installation costs. Subsidise the installation cost to get recurring revenue.
Its been done in the alarm industry for years now. |
|
lutful
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON
| reply to thewisperer
said by thewisperer  :Mike_27: I am using winbox and my queues are set up just as you suggest. Please post your current configuration for Mike and others -I am sure they will be able spot if something is not quite right.
You could either save a full system backup using
system backup> save name=wisperer_full
or export just the queue configuration using
queue simple>export file=wisperer_queue
For any complex WISP systems, and specially Mikrotik, it is useful to save current settings as you experiment.  |
|
jlester
join:2005-02-07
N. Calif.
| reply to kewlkeed
I have a few NS2s and plans to install a few more, so far so good. The Qs seem quite accurate on my system.
One thing to also consider, when using queues, use it to shape traffic. Not to throttle clients.
I have a Mikrotik PR732 as my core router. It does all of the throttling with simple Qs. I have no throttling in the RB600 at the main tower, Motorola APs, Motorola SMs, PS2s, NS2s or CPEs
Would you use the RB600, Motorola SMs and or NS2s for throttling instead of my PR732?
PR732----Moto BH20BHM-->>>BH20BHS----RB600----Moto APs-->>Moto SMs----PS2-->>>NS2s
--
Motorola Canopy Wireless Broadband System
"Broadband For The Boonies"
Link Globally, Buy Locally. It Matters.
|
|
trc120
join:2006-02-01
Mosier, OR
| reply to kewlkeed
kewlkeed,
Are you saying to limit the download at the cpe? This would go against hitting the backhaul.
I have queues on 3.10(hotspot) and 3.17(pppoe) issued by radius using WISPR and MT rate limits that seem to work. However my heaviest ap only has 15 registrations and they are light users, so the RB433 is not stressed much.
I agree that download should be controlled as early as possible but I do not know of such an easy way to do this at the head end. As stated, the CPE is easy for the upload.
Any suggestions?
--
www.MoWiNet.com - Maximizing the Distance |
|
gunther_01
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
| reply to snowpro2000
PR732 Here----Moto BH20BHM-->>>BH20BHS----RB600----Moto APs-->>Moto SMs----PS2-->>>NS2s and here would be the best place to throttle. CPE for upload, and head end for download If the purpose is to reduce traffic over wireless links.
We do it at the AP. And have no problems. It works like it's suppose to. Well shaping in general, I don't use Mikrotik |
|
viperm
Carpe Diem
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Winchester, CA
1 edit | reply to kewlkeed
While this is a great idea to throttle at the client, it is not always possible. We throttle all our clients at the ap due to the fact the Tranzeo CPE radios we use do not allow this luxury. We are using the RB 433AH units and we very rarly hit 10-15% CPU utilization on the heavesy AP with 1 sr2 and about 60 clients all throttled..
Now we are looking at using the NS2 units and have field tested 2 of them with good results. The only problem I see is the wide beam of the antenna on these things and when you throw up a bunch of them you may run into issues. (not that we have any now with the tranzeos)
Just an FYI.. |
|
Inssomniak
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON
| Ive always throttled at the core router(ROS), all PPPoE terminated via IP tunnels from other APs (also mikrotik ROS). I (will) have another router that handles the wan pipe and overall QoS. my core router is a p4 1.6, 200 users with 35% CPU at peak time.
I try to keep all unnecessary traffic off the backhauls! |
|
kewlkeed
Grouch
Premium
join:2005-02-05
Knowlton, QC
| reply to snowpro2000
I should clarify what I said... It is good practice to throttle at the clients, not the only way to do it though. There are times where you simply can't (Tranzeo) or it makes it more convenient to do it at the router (If you're using PPPoE profiles with RADIUS etc).
It's just one of the key things is to keep the traffic that you will be eventually rejecting anyway, off your backhauls and APs. That's the advantage of doing it at the client end. It's not very friendly for keeping it simple in RADIUS or usermanager, but it does guarantee that the traffic won't be eating up your APs or backhauls for nothing.
Say you've got a simple 802.11b client running at full speed (4-5Mbps whatever) and you've got him cranked down to 512k. Now you have an extra 3-4Mbps going across your AP, and your backhaul (And however many hops you may have), only to be discarded at your router. That's a big networking resource waste.
Again it's another tool in the box, and not necessarily the only way to go. But it's the surefire way to make sure you don't have traffic going over your system, that's going to be trashed anyway.
--
Justin - DSLR resident grouch and Mr Negativity
TSI Fanboy - "Dontchya wish your 'net was hot like mine! Ohhh Dontchya!"
Have a nice day! |
|
jlester
join:2005-02-07
N. Calif.
| It's just one of the key things is to keep the traffic that you will be eventually rejecting anyway, off your backhauls and APs. That's the advantage of doing it at the client end.
Mmm- That is exactly why I have it at the core router.. I guess I am no longer a newbie, after 1 year and 35 customers I hope I learned a few things! Feel free to correct me.
95% of my traffic is DL so if I throttle at the core router I keep the DL traffic off of the backhaul/APs etc, right?
Would you recommend I throttle the upload at the Motorola SM or CPE and the DL at the Core router???
My thoughts where that it is better to let the SM just "subscribe" and the AP just provide "access" and not make them do a bunch of processing etc. All my Moto SMs are wide open.
--
Motorola Canopy Wireless Broadband System
"Broadband For The Boonies"
Link Globally, Buy Locally. It Matters.
|
|
kewlkeed
Grouch
Premium
join:2005-02-05
Knowlton, QC
| reply to snowpro2000
OH SHOOT!
Pardon me now I see why I'm sounding like an ass!
I should have stated that as well for download. Sorry I'm in an environment where download doesn't cause us any problems but it's always the upload where we have morons who go crazy with it. I should have stated that, my bad!
We do both in the end yes, the router ones on the PPPoE profiles controls the downloads however we control the upload more by the CPEs (The upload can be controlled by the profiles on the router as well, but it's already done at the CPE so those rules do nothing)
Sorry my coffee drip needs to be turned up. I don't even think about download anymore since it's just not a problem for us. I'm always trying to keep upload stupidities at bay more than anything else.
*Tucks tail and walks off* DOH!
--
Justin - DSLR resident grouch and Mr Negativity
TSI Fanboy - "Dontchya wish your 'net was hot like mine! Ohhh Dontchya!"
Have a nice day! |
|
mejimbo
join:2003-10-05
| reply to snowpro2000
If all things were perfect, you would throttle the clients UPLOAD traffic at their CPE and DOWNLOAD traffic at the edge of your network.
Most people don't want to administer 2 sets of queues and want a central place to queue/shape all traffic, which is usually a core or edge router in the network that all traffic passes through.
Generally limiting a client in a core router for both upload and download works fine, especially for TCP. The exception to this might be excessive UDP packets coming from a client or if the client is infected with a virus that is sending packets as fast as it can. While the core router only lets the set amount through, they still go through your network, until dropped by the core router. |
|
