[LARTC] HFSC and that ATM overhead problem (Another VOIP QoS post.

[LARTC] HFSC and that ATM overhead problem (Another VOIP QoS post.

[Fog_Watch]

G'Day

I would like to be able to use my VOIP telephone over a saturated
ADSL link whilst enjoying optimum audio quality and utilising all of the
bandwidth I pay for.  It is about this situation that I write.

HFSC appears to be the queueing discipline of choice for VOIP.  In order
for this to work, though, do I have to account for the ATM overhead in
the small VOIP packets by defining my maximum root class bit rate as
(measured max bit rate)*%50 (or some other awful percentage)?

If the answer is yes to the above, does that mean that the next best
solution would be HTB coupled with the newly updated
http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/?  Would Shorewall with patched kernel and
patched iproute2 be the most Luddite way of using adsl-optimizer?

Ah, so many questions, sorry.  Have a nice day.

Regards

Fog_Watch.
-- 
Lose wait.  Get Gentoo.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] HFSC and that ATM overhead problem (Another VOIP QoS

[Gustavo Homem]

On Sunday 04 November 2007 12:04, Fog_Watch wrote:
> G'Day
>
> I would like to be able to use my VOIP telephone over a saturated
> ADSL link whilst enjoying optimum audio quality and utilising all of the
> bandwidth I pay for.  It is about this situation that I write.
>
> HFSC appears to be the queueing discipline of choice for VOIP.  In order
> for this to work, though, do I have to account for the ATM overhead in
> the small VOIP packets by defining my maximum root class bit rate as
> (measured max bit rate)*%50 (or some other awful percentage)?
>
> If the answer is yes to the above, does that mean that the next best
> solution would be HTB coupled with the newly updated
> http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/?  

Ah! Thanks for pointing to us that the kernel devs finnally accepted the 
patches.

Does someone know if the patched TC will work for kernel versions >= 2.6.24?

> Would Shorewall with patched kernel and 
> patched iproute2 be the most Luddite way of using adsl-optimizer?

I don't use Shorewall, but rather an iptables script which works for most 
scenarios:

http://downloads.angulosolido.pt/iptables/

If you don't use a patched kernel and if your system has only two network 
interfaces, you can use a script like this one:

http://downloads.angulosolido.pt/QoS/HTB_shaper_basic.sh

and take the overhead into account empirically (this one is HTB based). 

That is, start with the value the modem is synchronized for, fill the line 
with the average traffic you expect and lower the values until is OK. As you 
lower the upstream value you will find increasingly better latency values 
(try with ping + voip app).

The best way is indeed patching the kernel and tc so that the overhead is 
automatically taken into account. I haven't done it yet, since that process 
doesn't scale for using across multiple systems of different versions.

Now that the kernel patches were accepted things may change :-)

Best regards
Gustavo


-- 
Angulo Sólido - Tecnologias de Informação
http://angulosolido.pt
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] HFSC and that ATM overhead problem (Another VOIP QoS

[Giovanni Bajo]

On dom, 2007-11-04 at 23:04 +1100, Fog_Watch wrote:

> HFSC appears to be the queueing discipline of choice for VOIP.

Is it? Any pointers?
-- 
Giovanni Bajo


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] HFSC and that ATM overhead problem (Another VOIP QoS

[Michal Soltys]

Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> On dom, 2007-11-04 at 23:04 +1100, Fog_Watch wrote:
> 
>> HFSC appears to be the queueing discipline of choice for VOIP.
> 
> Is it? Any pointers?

Well, it can decouple bandwidth and delay. And both are important here. Some 
documentation pointers:

http://linux-ip.net/articles/hfsc.en/
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~istoica/hfsc-tr.ps.gz (deep, but good read)
http://www.sonycsl.co.jp/~kjc/software/TIPS.txt (regarding implementation in 
*BSD)
http://marc.info/?t\x107799591400001&r=1&w=2

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] HFSC and that ATM overhead problem (Another VOIP QoS

[Ian]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:34:07 +0100
Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com> wrote:

> On dom, 2007-11-04 at 23:04 +1100, Fog_Watch wrote:
> 
> > HFSC appears to be the queueing discipline of choice for VOIP.
> 
> Is it? Any pointers?
I was going on gut instinct from vague information I read cruising
around.  Michal Soltys has given the hard references.

-- 
Lose wait.  Get Gentoo.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] HFSC and that ATM overhead problem (Another VOIP QoS

[Fog_Watch]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:46:37 +0000
Gustavo Homem <gustavo@angulosolido.pt> wrote:

> I don't use Shorewall, but rather an iptables script which works for
> most scenarios:
No disrespect, but that sounds too scary for me.  I feel more
comfortable if something like Shorewall is holding my hand.
> That is, start with the value the modem is synchronized for, fill the
> line with the average traffic you expect and lower the values until
> is OK. As you lower the upstream value you will find increasingly
> better latency values (try with ping + voip app).
Thanks for the explanation.
> doesn't scale for using across multiple systems of
> different versions.
I didn't understand that bit.  What are the "systems" and "versions"?

Regards

Fog_Watch.

-- 
Lose wait.  Get Gentoo.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] HFSC and that ATM overhead problem (Another VOIP QoS

[Gustavo Homem]

On Sunday 04 November 2007 23:16, Fog_Watch wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:46:37 +0000
>
> Gustavo Homem <gustavo@angulosolido.pt> wrote:
> > I don't use Shorewall, but rather an iptables script which works for
> > most scenarios:
>
> No disrespect, but that sounds too scary for me.  I feel more
> comfortable if something like Shorewall is holding my hand.

Takes more time the first time and less time from then on.

>
> > That is, start with the value the modem is synchronized for, fill the
> > line with the average traffic you expect and lower the values until
> > is OK. As you lower the upstream value you will find increasingly
> > better latency values (try with ping + voip app).
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> > doesn't scale for using across multiple systems of
> > different versions.
>
> I didn't understand that bit.  What are the "systems" and "versions"?
>

If you manage multiple Linux systems with different versions you realize that 
patching the kernels for all, and retesting afterwards, takes quite some 
time. Then if you need a kernel upgrade, there you go again praying that the 
patches work.

The point was: the gain obtained from using those patches might not compensate 
the time investment, on the scenarios I work with.

For a single setup, or multiple identical ones, it will pay off for sure.

Cheers
Gustavo

> Regards
>
> Fog_Watch.

-- 
Angulo Sólido - Tecnologias de Informação
http://angulosolido.pt
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc