dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
500
share rss forum feed

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2

MT queue vs hardware limit

In Mikrotik routers, I've traditionally limited throughput using a queue. Right now, I am limiting one interface to 30 megs using a PFIFO queue attached to a specific ethernet port. Are there advantages or disadvantages to simply setting the ethernet port to a 30M limit rather than using the queue?



Inssomniak
The Glitch
Premium
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON
kudos:2

I couldnt get that to work

Regardless of what I set the port to, it just got ignored, YMMV.?
--
OptionsDSL Wireless Internet
»www.optionsdsl.ca



DaDawgs
Premium
join:2010-08-02
Deltaville, VA
reply to jcremin

said by jcremin:

In Mikrotik routers, I've traditionally limited throughput using a queue. Right now, I am limiting one interface to 30 megs using a PFIFO queue attached to a specific ethernet port. Are there advantages or disadvantages to simply setting the ethernet port to a 30M limit rather than using the queue?

Well sure there are advantages to both approaches. Setting to 30M and locking it down in the hardware is a concrete limit. It is fast and simple but it does not allow you to shape traffic. If you expect the customer to shape his own traffic then that setup is going to be more efficient than traffic shaping.

If, on the other hand, you want to more efficiently use a 30M pipe shared between a lot of customers, you are going to want to do shaping. I posted some MT scripts that do shaping some while back.
--
Once we IPv6 enable every device on the Internet we will have toasters, baby monitors, and security cameras joining the bot nets which today are populated only by idiots that can not refrain from clicking, "Yes I would like to see those titties..."

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2

said by DaDawgs:

If you expect the customer to shape his own traffic then that setup is going to be more efficient than traffic shaping.

In this specific instance, I am the customer. I have a router in my upstream provider's datacenter, and I set the queue for the speed I am purchasing from them. I know they check my graph from time to time to make sure I'm not using more than I'm paying for, but it's never been an issue since I use the queue to limit myself to what I'm supposed to be using.

So far, the queue has worked quite well. As I approach or reach my limit, the queue kicks in and ping times start creeping up, but traffic still flows quite nice. If I were to set a hard limit, I'm assuming it would be less CPU intensive, but would I also see every packet over the limit be dropped, rather than queued? It seems that a slight increase in ping times is better than just getting packet loss, right?


DaDawgs
Premium
join:2010-08-02
Deltaville, VA

said by jcremin:

In this specific instance, I am the customer.

Ah! In this case you should be running shapers to maximize your network performance and customer experience.

»Mikrotik Script to manage PPPoE Queues

Something like that works very well. You can also categorize traffic and change priorities. This is a good thing to do because it optimizes network performance for each traffic type.

Good thread => »Traffic shaping

Feel free to PM me if you want more information about priority queues on MT.
--
Once we IPv6 enable every device on the Internet we will have toasters, baby monitors, and security cameras joining the bot nets which today are populated only by idiots that can not refrain from clicking, "Yes I would like to see those titties..."