No...
In terms of cpu resources is it lighter than sqm?
No...
In terms of cpu resources is it lighter than sqm?
as I understand it this is a system to help you adjust DSCP tags, it doesn't do queue management by itself, so it's basically an add-on to SQM, therefore not lighter in any way.
Actually, it launches the cake qdisc (like SQM would do), and you do not need SQM at all.
In a sense, this is a replacement for SQM.
Sorry, I should have said it isn't a replacement for cake. SQM is more than cake but it's the main dish so to speak.
Since sqm's run time costs is really just the instantiated qdisc hierarchy's CPU requirements, qosify should be identical to layer_cake.qos/cake in sqm. In theory simplest.qos/fq_codel might be a bit less CPU-hungry, but the recommended SQM configuration with layer_cake.qos or piece_of_cake.qos will be just as CPU demanding. By the way is not actually the (flow-queueing) traffic scheduler or the AQM part that is so CPU-intensive, but the traffic shaper, and there is not much difference in the CPU cost of the available shapers (TBF, HTB, cake, HFSC).
Two different devices (mamba, rango) running same build, exact same /etc/confi/qosify, reboot,:
Option option ingress_options "wash" makes a significant throughput difference in my environs, cable with docsis 3.1 modem; option ingress_options "besteffort wash" seemed to play about the same.
Mmmh, could you run a packet capture for ingress traffic on the WAN side and check the DSCP values of those packets, please? Some ISPs mark considerable fractions of traffic CS1 (I believe this was reported for ComCast in the past) which ends up in cake's lowest priority tin and will see little throughput if there is traffic in the other tins.
besteffort will in deed make less work than the dual-XXXhost modes, but at the cost of not offering per IP fairness.
I just pushed another big qosify update:
So, if I wanted to use Qosify as it is at the moment...
I don't need to select luci-app-sqm if building my own, right? I just select, build, configure as needed and enable Qosify. Is this correct?
Correct. If you're building your own, you should leave out any other sqm-scripts related packages. You also need an LLVM toolchain. The easiest way is if you download the llvm-bpf tarball from the snapshot build of any target and unpack it directly into your OpenWrt source directory.
when i try to install the package i returned this error
Command failed: Request timed out
do you know why?
and the system log reports this
Sat Nov 20 08:18:18 2021 daemon.info procd: Instance qosify::instance1 s in a crash loop 6 crashes, 1 seconds since last crash
Did you build it yourself, or did you use the snapshot? Which version and which target did you use?
Please run qosify -o | nc termbin.com 9999
and send me the link.
Thanks for the reply,
i used the snapshot
OpenWrt SNAPSHOT r18117-ea5fce3f46 / LuCI Master git-21.322.38385-6507b1f
the target is
ramips/mt7621
I am attaching the log generated by qosify -o | nc termbin.com 9999
What's the version of the qosify package installed on your device?
qosify 2021-11-12-bfc2cafe
Please try to update the qosify package. A new snapshot build with the latest version just finished.
Is there any guide I can follow to tailor this software to my needs? Thanks in advance.
so on wrt3200acm
/etc/init.d/qosify status shows running
however no process or tc shows qdisc
running qosify on its own
libbpf: map 'config': created successfully, fd=4
libbpf: failed to mkdir /sys/fs/bpf/qosify_data/config: No such file or directory
libbpf: map 'config': failed to auto-pin at '/sys/fs/bpf/qosify_data/config': -2
libbpf: map 'config': failed to create: No such file or directory(-2)
libbpf: failed to load object '/lib/bpf/qosify-bpf.o'
bpf_object__load: No such file or directory
Thanks! Now I really need to get my old test router in service again so I can build and test this.
Why? It should be enough to simply not enable sqm on the same interface. One of the things sqm-scripts has going for it is that it allows multiple instances on different interfaces (which occasionally is actually useful).