@Dashrender said in QoS on Edgerouter Lite:

@Romo said in QoS on Edgerouter Lite:

Just setup a traffic-policy shaper to test:

20% bandwidth for voip guaranteed with a ceiling of 100% bandwidth
30% bandwidth for USERS PC guaranteed with a ceiling of 100% bandwidth
50% bandwidth for ALL others guaranteed with a ceiling of 100% bandwidth

Does this sound reasonable?

if you parse off 50% for those things and they aren't in use, then the bandwidth is just being wasted... I know scott has mentioned that doing this is generally bad in the past because of the waste of resources.

You don't read clearly. He's talking minimum guarantee at 20/30/50 and max possible when available at 100 for all.

In big companies how use VoIP for production for example, this is a most, QoS needs to be very well deployed, to improve users/clients experience using the phone.

@krisleslie said in Configuring QoS on a Edge Switch 48 Lite:

See for me I don't understand when and where to apply QoS. As one minute your told it's useless the other it's useful. Like what's missing is the context behind the usage. I agree with Jared in that if your enabling it, by that alone it doesn't mean something magical is happening, something specific is.

It's EXTREMELY USEFUL in VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.

It's like a shotgun isn't useful at the grocery store, but in the limited case of hunting, it's useful.

@jaredbusch said in ERL and Smart Queue throughput:

If the CPU was not limiting things, the unit should be pull 100Mbps
The Smart Queue is set to 100.

Of course, that is what I was referring.

@jaredbusch said in EdgeRouter "Smart" QoS issue:

@fuznutz04 said in EdgeRouter "Smart" QoS issue:

@jaredbusch said in EdgeRouter "Smart" QoS issue:

@fuznutz04 said in EdgeRouter "Smart" QoS issue:

The ER-Lite boxes have a "Smart" QoS wizard. The way I've always understood it, it works as follows:

You fill in the line speeds of the service you are actually paying for.

Example:0_1516985914606_QoS.png

The above screenshot is from my home, so the speed in the boxes doesn't line up with the rest of the details here, it's just and example.

So if you pay for 100/10, that's what you put in the boxes. I do this at the office, at home, and other clients. However, I ran into a situation where using the Smart QoS wizard, actually really limits the DL speed.

I did a speed test with the QoS setting ON, and got the proper UL speed, but was limited to 50-60 DL speed. As soon as I removed QoS, I got the proper speed of 100 DL and 10 UL.

Has anyone experience this before on the Edge Routers? Perhaps @JaredBusch ?

This is normal and expected because traffic policies and the smart queue policies both force traffic to not be offloaded.

The CPU in the ERL cannot process traffic faster than ~60mbps without the offload functionality.

Well alright then. Simple explanation. I’ve never run into this, because we have such slow speeds around here. So this would be an example where I could upgrade to the next model. Perhaps the ER4? I haven’t read the spec sheets yet on them.

Correct using a different model is what is required to obtain better speeds in this situation.

The ERX will perform better because it has a better CPU than the ERL. But it has less memory which leads to other problems.

The ER4 is light years ahead of the ERL by comparison due to the newer CPU.

OK great. Looks like I'll need to start recommending these now. First, I want to get one for myself at my office. Did you manage to get your hands on one yet?

@dustinb3403 said in Confirming QoS for VOIP on Procurve 2848:

Ok cool.

Now looking at another switch 46 and 48 have a priority of 7, and 26 a priority of 4. (without an override).

Should I set everything to be like below?

46-7
48-6
26-4

Doesn't really matter. If you have no traffic on any other DSCP tags those priorities never apply.

Also does not matter much if you are not saturating the switch port in the first place.

Same thing on the switches, prioritize that tag end to end.

@krisleslie said in Hitting the limits of the Ubiquiti EdgeRouter:

@jaredbusch My apologies, I meant QoS!

Well then, yes, better QoS performance because better processors.