You should not see any bottleneck on the incoming packets.
You should not shape your download speed because your ISP is not able to give you what you paid for. If this is the case, you should choose another ISP rather than capping your download speed.
This is the expected behaviour (no SQM):
You should not see any bottleneck on download speed;
You must see an abnormal behaviour on the upload, because the router will send more than your contracted data plan. For example: your router will try to push at 500Mbps but your contracted speed is 100Mbps, this is when SQM is needed.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I showed actual data of sqm on ingress noticeably improving things, and also can explain why this actually works.
Look I care for lowish latency under load way more than for peak capacity, so I happily shape my 116.7 Mbps DSL link ingress down to 100 Mbps, as for my usecases that (100 Mbps + sqm) performs significantly better than 116.7 Mbps without sqm. If you value peak capacity more, that is fine, your network, your rules.
That said, please stop repeating the claim that ingress shaping can not work... as that is a matter of fact, not of opinion.
With that said, plan to let this rest, as this thread is not about sqm.
You just capped your download speed to the limit where your ISP can supply. It's not a SQM thing. You are showing that your ISP is overcapacity. Pick another one.
Look at your graph: it's sustained. Your ISP is struggling to supply what you paid for.
I agree with the expert moeller0. I have an excellent connection at two locations where libreqos shows no congestion up or down alone, but for simultaneous traffic I will never get an A+ score until I have SQM working on ingress.
Yes, your configuration certainly makes a difference, thank you. I'm testing with the pesa's latest build.
Edit: After testing, I reverted.
Changing the subject: The pesa build for the Flint 2 exposes so many cool settings to play with, but I can't find any tweaks that actually result in improved performance for me. A perfectly optimized OOBE such as this is actually optimal, but the part of me ingrained from back in the DOS days when tweaks made a difference really wants beam forming or WED or irq balancing or packet steering or preferably all of them at the same time to improve performance. lol
I have always maintained the least expensive ISP plan and for years that was 300Mb down. Finally, my ISP couldn't maintain such a slow tier and so over time upgraded me twice and I'm now at 1Gb. My DOCSIS 1 modem doesn't go that fast, so I bought a DOCSIS 2 modem and as a byproduct I get much better latency performance too. So, sqm should actually make things perfect, but it doesn't, and the reason is because I can't shape ingress anymore. I could shape ingress when I had the 300Mb plan because my router had enough headroom.
I assume the Flint 2 isn't architecturally capable of doing 1Gbps ingress sqm and that the easiest way is to use an x86 box?
Anybody here has openvpn package installed and tried latest 4.8.2 of pesa?
OpenVPN package f*cked my /etc/config/network. I was scratching my head after flashing 4.8.2 the router won't work. Then when I checked the system logs I'm being flooded by errors for custom_config, sample_client, and sample_server.
I checked Network -> Interfaces and yes, there are 3 new interfaces.
