Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #228729 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Graham Bull <graham.bull@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-11-17 21:20 +0100 |
| Last post | 2020-11-18 18:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 5 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Encountered a bug with a dependency of wondershaper, but I'm unsure which dependency, and how to proceed with submitting a bug report Graham Bull <graham.bull@gmail.com> - 2020-11-17 21:20 +0100
Re: Encountered a bug with a dependency of wondershaper, but I'm unsure which dependency, and how to proceed with submitting a bug report Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-11-17 21:40 +0100
Re: Encountered a bug with a dependency of wondershaper, but I'm unsure which dependency, and how to proceed with submitting a bug report Graham Bull <graham.bull@gmail.com> - 2020-11-18 19:40 +0100
Re: Encountered a bug with a dependency of wondershaper, but I'm unsure which dependency, and how to proceed with submitting a bug report Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-11-18 20:10 +0100
Re: Encountered a bug with a dependency of wondershaper, but I'm unsure which dependency, and how to proceed with submitting a bug report Mirko Parthey <mirko.parthey@web.de> - 2020-11-18 18:40 +0100
| From | Graham Bull <graham.bull@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-11-17 21:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Encountered a bug with a dependency of wondershaper, but I'm unsure which dependency, and how to proceed with submitting a bug report |
| Message-ID | <BcfCh-4qB-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi all, I've been using wondershaper on Debian Stable for the past couple of years and it's been excellent. I got a new pc recently with modern hardware and thus I installed Debian Testing on it. I've noticed when I set the same rules within wondershaper on Stable and Testing, I get different behavior. Stable acts as expected, low latency and able to hit the limits set. Testing suffers a lot of latency and I'm only able to reach a fraction of the limit set. When I remove the wondershaper rules everything works as expected (I can max my internet connection on both computers). I've determined Stable and Testing use the same version of wondershaper=1.1a-10. Wondershaper has one dependency: Stable: iproute2=4.20.0-2 Testing: iproute2=5.9.0-1 iproute2 has around 8 dependencies. At this point I'm confused about how I should proceed with debugging my issue. Any advice of how to collect more info for debugging purposes or how to proceed would be very much appreciated! Regards, Graham
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-11-17 21:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Encountered a bug with a dependency of wondershaper, but I'm unsure which dependency, and how to proceed with submitting a bug report |
| Message-ID | <BcfVE-4xf-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #228729 |
Graham Bull wrote:
> I've been using wondershaper on Debian Stable for the past couple of years
> and it's been excellent.
>
> I got a new pc recently with modern hardware and thus I installed Debian
> Testing on it.
>
> I've noticed when I set the same rules within wondershaper on Stable and
> Testing, I get different behavior.
> Stable acts as expected, low latency and able to hit the limits set.
> Testing suffers a lot of latency and I'm only able to reach a fraction of
> the limit set.
>
> When I remove the wondershaper rules everything works as expected (I can
> max my internet connection on both computers).
>
> I've determined Stable and Testing use the same version of
> wondershaper=1.1a-10.
>
> Wondershaper has one dependency:
>
> Stable: iproute2=4.20.0-2
> Testing: iproute2=5.9.0-1
>
> iproute2 has around 8 dependencies.
>
> At this point I'm confused about how I should proceed with debugging my
> issue.
>
> Any advice of how to collect more info for debugging purposes or how to
> proceed would be very much appreciated!
At this point, you might be better served by simply switching to
fq_codel, unless you have a particularly odd network connection.
In my /etc/network/interfaces on the firewall:
up tc qdisc replace dev eth3 root fq_codel
Wondershaper itself changed a lot after the 1.1 version that Debian
packages; you might want to ping the nominal maintainer and see
if they want to upgrade to 1.4.blah -- or, given the
availability of fq_codel, just drop the package.
-dsr-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Graham Bull <graham.bull@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-11-18 19:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Encountered a bug with a dependency of wondershaper, but I'm unsure which dependency, and how to proceed with submitting a bug report |
| Message-ID | <BcAx3-8mx-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #228733 |
On 11/17/20 9:34 PM, Dan Ritter wrote: > Graham Bull wrote: >> I've been using wondershaper on Debian Stable for the past couple of years >> and it's been excellent. >> >> I got a new pc recently with modern hardware and thus I installed Debian >> Testing on it. >> >> I've noticed when I set the same rules within wondershaper on Stable and >> Testing, I get different behavior. >> Stable acts as expected, low latency and able to hit the limits set. >> Testing suffers a lot of latency and I'm only able to reach a fraction of >> the limit set. >> >> When I remove the wondershaper rules everything works as expected (I can >> max my internet connection on both computers). >> >> I've determined Stable and Testing use the same version of >> wondershaper=1.1a-10. >> >> Wondershaper has one dependency: >> >> Stable: iproute2=4.20.0-2 >> Testing: iproute2=5.9.0-1 >> >> iproute2 has around 8 dependencies. >> >> At this point I'm confused about how I should proceed with debugging my >> issue. >> >> Any advice of how to collect more info for debugging purposes or how to >> proceed would be very much appreciated! > At this point, you might be better served by simply switching to > fq_codel, unless you have a particularly odd network connection. > > In my /etc/network/interfaces on the firewall: > up tc qdisc replace dev eth3 root fq_codel > > Wondershaper itself changed a lot after the 1.1 version that Debian > packages; you might want to ping the nominal maintainer and see > if they want to upgrade to 1.4.blah -- or, given the > availability of fq_codel, just drop the package. > > -dsr- > fq_codel seems to be a good replacement, thanks for the suggestion. However I decided to try the upstream version of wondershaper and to my surprise it worked perfectly. I then attempted to contact the Debian maintainer about upgrading the package but my email sadly bounced back. I am interested in getting the latest version of wondershaper into the Debian repos. If the current maintainer is unreachable do you have any ideas on how to proceed? Graham
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-11-18 20:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Encountered a bug with a dependency of wondershaper, but I'm unsure which dependency, and how to proceed with submitting a bug report |
| Message-ID | <BcB06-jY-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #228765 |
On Wed 18 Nov 2020 at 19:34:10 +0100, Graham Bull wrote: > I am interested in getting the latest version of wondershaper into the > Debian repos. If the current maintainer is unreachable do you have any ideas > on how to proceed? You submit a bug report (severity: wishlist) using reportbug. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mirko Parthey <mirko.parthey@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-11-18 18:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Encountered a bug with a dependency of wondershaper, but I'm unsure which dependency, and how to proceed with submitting a bug report |
| Message-ID | <BczAZ-7NE-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #228729 |
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 09:15:15PM +0100, Graham Bull wrote: > I've noticed when I set the same rules within wondershaper on Stable and > Testing, I get different behavior. > Stable acts as expected, low latency and able to hit the limits set. > Testing suffers a lot of latency and I'm only able to reach a fraction of the > limit set. > > When I remove the wondershaper rules everything works as expected (I can max my > internet connection on both computers). > > [...] > > Any advice of how to collect more info for debugging purposes or how to proceed > would be very much appreciated! Short summary: I suggest to dump wondershaper and use CAKE instead. Please read on for details. On typical ISP access links, there are devices on both ends of the link that introduce high network latency under load (xDSL modem, DSLAM, cable modem, CMTS). This can be shown well by the DSLreports speed test: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest Often, these devices use large network buffers and too simple buffer management, which cannot be changed by the user. Your only chance to reduce the latency is to set up a traffic shaper on a device under your control to make it a "choke point". I guess you know this since you are using wondershaper. A good solution is the combination of a shaper (e.g. HTB) with fq_codel. wondershaper does not use fq_codel yet. Personally, I use the CAKE qdisc since it is easier to set up and comes with even more improvements over HTB + fq_codel: man tc-cake https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Cake/ My router runs the OpenWrt distribution, but CAKE should also work on Debian. Before giving further advice, I would like to know more about your network: - Does the Debian box in question manage your Internet access link, or - is there a separate router, and are there other devices using it? - What is the type (xDSL, cable, ...) and speed of your Internet link (down/up)? Regards, Mirko
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web