but i want you to know that my calls,games,surfing are a lot better now.
all isp are stupid here they don't know what dose qos mean or do.
BTW: i will monitor packets and see their tags.
is it possible to tag skype packets i can set port 30000 or anything in skype settings?
It even happens here in the US there were posts about a cable company sending everything as dscp cs1 causing all stuff to go through the lowest performance wmm queue
It's an example of why not to trust all dscp.
1 Like
so is there any work around ?
also i see now in new skype i can't set incoming calls port!
Work around was to zero out dscp as it comes in your router 
Yes Skype seems to cause people headaches with qos. I use SIP so don't know much about Skype.
1 Like
thanks,but can i ask you from where do you get those iptables about set dscp and from where do you get that af41 for videos ,af21 for fast stuff and cs6 for high priority?
I had about a year where I had a cable modem service and used VOIP, I had to do many business phone calls and people kept complaining about my phone garbling. I spent a lot of time reading up on QOS systems trying to get it to work well... In the end I had to leave that cable provider and go with a less noisy/lossy ISP but I learned a lot about QoS and did make everything work a lot better.
short answer: a lot of googling 
1 Like
good luck,thank you!
now because of your big help, now my calls,games,surfing a lot better.
i will let you know when i will be on new isp.
can you please accept my pm.
If you have more then 30-40 Mbit/s fireqos is bad. It can't handle big bandwith. If i activate fireqos with minimum settings my wifi drops to ~30 Mbit/s without sqm, qos, fireqos i stabilized at 68/78 Mbit/s. Fireqos drops my bandwith on wire too. I have 100 Mbit/s for this month. On sqm i lose about 10% bandwith on fireqos i lose 25-30-40% and more. sqm is much better and stable!
1 Like
@anon20279570 I would not recommend to qualitatively compare @hisham2630's fireqos solution with qos-scripts and/or sqm-scripts as neither of the latter two actually solves his problem at all. So for him it does not matter how much less CPU cycles they might need for not solving his challenge
And yes all traffic shaping in software will incur a noticeable performance hit that might affect a typical home router's usability for additional tasks (like wifi). One solution for that problem is simply to get more performant hardware or scale down the services" expected from the shaper box (like disabling wifi and use a dedicated AP in the internal network instead).
There is also the additional fact that ingress shaping requires a bandwidth sacrifice as other wise the upstream bufferbloat will dominate the performance under saturating loads.
1 Like
nice words.
lets him buy a new stronger router "better hardware",then lets see if one those qos software will work as he like!
my router is old tp-link w8970,but perform good with qos,sometimes my router do a random reboot once per day sometimes no reboot.but at least i'm happy with results,even with a worst internet connection,i'm thinking to buy a new better router.
1 Like
it's not that fireqos can't handle that bandwidth. I shape far more than 30-40 Mbit/s using fireqos, but I do it on an X86 celeron j1900 motherboard with dual Intel NICs. In fact, 30 mbits is how much I let my guest network have
The key is, router manufacturers lie like all marketing. The benchmarks of someone with a technical background tell the story more clearly, for large bandwidth connections, you need more hardware and even high end consumer hardware pales in comparison to a low end X86, particularly in small-packet high bandwidth situations
In particular many consumer level routers only work "well" because of hardware acceleration chips (FastPath etc), but these can't work while also having bandwidth shaping and bufferbloat control. Since I consider bandwidth shaping and bufferbloat control an ESSENTIAL part of what a router is. I don't actually consider these lower performance consumer routers actually are routers. Well, of course they work fine as routers if you have 1 or 10 Mbit, but by 20 or 40 Mbits they actually just can't do basic things like bufferbloat control. Well, of course as time goes on, the requirements for what is needed to do what we expect increases. Today, the cost of a high end router is close to the cost of a low end x86, but the low end x86 is FAR better performance.
3 Likes
HI,
Great news now i'm on new isp, my subscription is 5Mbps but they give me about 10 Mbps.
without fireqos:
with fireqos:
Awesome, the speed boost should help a lot.
1 Like
Yeah, really nice.
do you have some knowledge about openwrt makfile.
This topic was automatically closed 10 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.