From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 7 18:58:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E766F16A420 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:58:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bill.marquette@gmail.com) Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (xproxy.gmail.com [66.249.82.195]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7796843D53 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:58:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bill.marquette@gmail.com) Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s9so997600wxc for ; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 10:58:42 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=auJef+sBEfJBALw+b+jkcoJ8QsDumgsgF+eCFLUMLBqBlcWZCxY0QqWAY8hXbwv082fwERFjb15KpYtB06y92h0zHh0HREpzVceWk9XAcFNHJvtc2BtHwOARieG5HEKm/gLKAgFkzhKnrdE9BBT3fUHGI25LHlZM7BSiPGPqCyo= Received: by 10.70.31.8 with SMTP id e8mr8302483wxe; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 10:58:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.89.8 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:58:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <55e8a96c0602071058h721bdeeag3b3da67ddc04bf3d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:58:42 -0600 From: Bill Marquette To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200602061102.k16B2Jis081798@freefall.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200602061102.k16B2Jis081798@freefall.freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Current problem reports assigned to you X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:58:44 -0000 On 2/6/06, FreeBSD bugmaster wrote: > Current FreeBSD problem reports > Critical problems > Serious problems > > S Submitted Tracker Resp. Description > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------ > o [2005/06/15] kern/82271 pf [pf] cbq scheduler cause bad laten= cy Hmmm, we're seeing this in pfSense on both the cbq and hfsc schedulers. I'm glad I saw this come through, I've spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what was wrong. CBQ in RELENG_6 is still doing what this PR suggests using the pfSense shaper setup (we've disabled it for now). HFSC appears to work for a while (at least I see no bad latencies immediately after load), but it eventually (in some cases immediately) also tends to cause massive latencies (completely idle connection showing 700ms pings w/ altq and 30ms pings w/out). It can be challenging to duplicate this with setups going from working to broken to working. --Bill