QoS, How well does it work? Real router review?

G

GeminiCool

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
97
I am so very tired of reading these transfer rates on these router reviews! I mean, come on is anyone who actually has a 50Mbps+ net connection actually going to buy a home grade router?

So DLink, Linksys, TRENDnet all offer some QoS filtering but there is only one (1) review on the entire net that I've found that actually attempts to measure this feature. Big props to firingsquad for this: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/d-link_dgl-4300/page5.asp

If your in a small business or home setting and have several PCs and want to assign a priority of access based on application, such as gaming, or VOIP, or web shopping, what level of QoS do you need? How well does this QoS work?

Let's say you have a 5M/368k cable connection. You play Supreme Commander on two PCs and someone else in the house begins browsing the web or using facebook. It's likely you begin to see lag spikes upward of 1-2 seconds. QoS should fix this, but what level of QoS is needed? If you buy a TRENDnet with the stream engine how far apart do you need to set the priorities? 1 to 255 or 10 to 50?

Are there any router reviews of QoS that measure how well they work? If I have a 60ping typically, as I add a Medium QoS were does the ping go? If I add a Low were does the ping go?

Does anyone know these kind of answers?
 
I'm not sure about the QoS on your unit, but I know that Supreme Commander(and FA) likes to use a solid 128k per player for upstream. If your connection wavers at all, you'll experience lag.

If I were to guess, the lowest priority will ALWAYS take precedence over the higher priority. So if you set gaming to 1, your preferred bandwidth will always go to SupCom.
 
I have a Sonicwall router at my house and and they have absolutely no QOS built into the router whatsoever. Sure, they pass along the DCSP values and have "bandwidth management" features, but overall it's just not an effective solution for handling online gaming, torrents and 2 separate VOIP lines. Often times my voip lines would break up (users said my vo-ice w-a-s ski-p-p-in-g). My upload is rated at 768K (around 650 actual).

I couldn't get rid of it as I needed it for my VPN tunnels, etc. So I searched on the net for long time and I came across the Hawking HBB1.

http://www.hawkingtech.com/products/productlist.php?CatID=36&FamID=80&ProdID=216

This is purely a QOS device that is based on the Ubicom Stream Engine. It sits between the modem and the router and is a "set it and forget it" type device. All I can say is that it works WONDERFULLY. No need to worry about setting "priorities" or bandwidth limits. It automatically prioritizes online gaming, streaming media and VOIP for you. I've tested it out multiple times (with FTP and torrent uploads) and each time it will automatically slow down the FTP and Torrent Upload while my wife is playing online or while I am on VOIP calls.

The ONLY issue that I seem to have with it is that it doesnt seem to work that well when I upload to any of my clients on the VPN. It shouldn't really care about VPN or WAN since it's in FRONT of the router, but I'm just calling it as I see it.

Overall, probably the best $60 I've spent for QOS. I recommend it wholeheartedly and since it uses the same Ubicom Stream Engine as the trendnet, I'm sure the trendnet would do fine as well.

Here are some reviews:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/holiday-buyers-guide-2005,1162-20.html

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-329-1.htm
 
I think one big issue is that each implementation of QoS is going to be different. Some are just a checkbox for "Optimize Gaming" while others will let you tweak every aspect of QoS (and thus the overall QoS performance will only be as good as the rules you set for it).

I've never used TRENDnet's StreamEngine, so I can't give you any details on that. However, I have DD-WRT installed on my routers, and its QoS works great for me. It's only got 5 levels - Bulk, Standard, Express, Premium, and Exempt. I simply set low-priority stuff like BitTorrent as bulk, important stuff like my games to Express, and really important stuff like DNS to Premium. I tell it how much bandwidth to use up and down, and it does it. I've personally had WoW's BitTorrent-based patcher upload so much as to choke off its own download on a previous connection. With DD-WRT's QoS, I started up BitTornado with no limits set in the application, opened up a web browser, and then played WoW. I noticed no hit to WoW's connection at all.

Keep in mind that QoS doesn't make your connection any better than it is. It just limits the other items on your connection that impact performance of your important items. Setting SupCom to a higher priority just tells the router to handle those packets before other packets. SupCom packets get to cut in line in front of other packets (and DNS gets to cut in front of SupCom, and HTML gets to cut in front of BitTorrent but not SupCom, etc.) but the line as a whole doesn't go any faster. You're just slowing down other things to ensure that SupCom goes through as fast as possible.

It looks like StreamEngine's 1-255 are just priority levels. 1 can cut in front of 2, which can cut in front of 3, which can cut in front of 4, etc. If you're only talking about two QoS-ed items, it doesn't matter if they're 1 and 255 or if they're 100 and 101. The lower number has higher priority and takes precedence over the higher number. 1-255 just gives you 255 different levels to say what has priority over other things. For example, BitTorrent is 255, rsync is 254, FTP is 253, DNS is 1, SupCom is 2, HTML is 3. DNS is always going to be ahead of everything else. rsync would be ahead of BT, but behind everything else. One thing to keep in mind is that each rule may require its own unique priority number, so you might be limited to 255 entries and be required to decide the exact order of each and every rule (i.e. Should BT be 255 and rsync 254, or should BT be 254 and rsync 255?).

You may also want to look into other network tweaks if you're primarily a gamer. For example, Windows by default will wait for a second packet to arrive before sending a TCP ACK response. This increases network efficiency at the cost of responsiveness. I'd imagine that sitting around waiting for a second packet would be even worse if there are other users slowing down the connection. http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info13581-LeatrixLatencyFix.html is a nice VBscript to enable/disable the delay. Even though it's on a WoW site, it's a Windows networking setting.
 
Thank you for the early feedback.

I've been playing SupCom from day one... I'm very aware of the upstream requirements. The 368k up is ok for an 8 player game w/ 2 pcs. The problem does arise as a 3rd pc in the house begins random browsing. I doubt increasing the net connection will resolve the issue, however it may feel a little better.

When I consider QoS, it feels almost as if the router would need some intelligent algorithms over and above a simple, "I have two packets let me send the higher priority". In order to really work, it's almost as if the router would need to buffer a packet at a lower priority. Or perhaps have knowledge that higher priority packets are "active". When higher priority packets are active, introduce a slight delay in the lower priority packets, effectively capping the percentage of available BW which is given to lower priority packets.

It's good to know that QoS 'just works' even if we really don't have much info.

If you come across some good testing on this function please keep this thread in mind.

-Peter.
 
I don't think you'll find good reviews about QoS/traffic shaping as far as home use goes, because it's just "too many variables".

Speed of internet connection
How many PCs sharing it
What games?
State of tuning of each PC, default, or TCP/RWin tweaks?

I can say that it does work, and I can say that I've run quite a few different routers with QoS, including using 3rd party firmware such as DD-WRT and Tomato, and even with those...they can't begin to touch the effectiveness of PFSense (a *nix router distro).

Router with no QoS, I can play online games fine..games such as Battlefield 1942/DC/Vietnam, Quake Live. As soon as someone else is doing something on another computer, surfing websites, playing a game...I get some lag...but not as bad as a router without QoS.

Router with DD or Tomato can help a little bit. But as soon as someone else is doing something heavy, I can feel it.

PFSense...4 or 5 PCs on the house can pound as heavy as they want, my pings stay rock steady.
 
I'm really less interested in a software solution for home. I like the idea of embedded hardware.

The HBB1 appears to be out of production. The Ubicom website lists several manufactures that use the Stream Engine, however most of them have no current routers with this technology.

I called Linksys and they told me they abandon the gamer router because of lack of interest. So today, for home routers (sub 150), there seems to be only a couple of options.

There is Linksys - 4 level QoS. How does this work compared to the routers that use the Ubicom chip? (http://www.ubicom.com/ip7000/ip7000.php)

SMC has one aging product that has the steam engine - SMCWGBR14-N
TRENDnet has one current product with the steam engine - TEW-633GR
DLink has a many current products all the gamer + several DIR models.

Is the 4 level QoS "enough" to help shape bandwidth? Of the sub $150 routers out there today, which one(s) would be the best recommendation?

While I agree, there is no "exact" answer, I completely dismiss the idea that there are too many variables to get a general feel for how well the technology works along with some general measurements... perhaps firingsquad and hardcoreware are good for the stream engine, now I just need to see one for the QoS 4 tear.
 
GeminiCool said:
The HBB1 appears to be out of production. The Ubicom website lists several manufactures that use the Stream Engine, however most of them have no current routers with this technology.
Click to expand...

DLinks gamerslounge series of routers does...they adopted Ubicoms engine back when the 4300 came out.
 
Only 2 or 3 of the sites had the HBB1 in stock. I checked the Hawking site and they have referb models only... not sure if I'm comfortable w/ that.

I know DLink offers that tech currently. I've read of some ppl having issues w/ the routers dropping the connection. Is this a common concern w/ these routers?

SMC is probably one of the top brands of the group... think that's the top pick?
 
You'll find users of any brand of router complaining of issues. Remember..at these sites, you have a bunch of home users. They're more prone to having issues with setting things up.

I'd take DLink over SMC.

Those Hawking units...I'd questions their support and length of providing firmware upgrades.
 
I agree about firmware updates for support...as I think there's only been one update since the unit was made. As for support, I have no idea as I've never tried to use it.

You're best bet is to stick with a router or device that uses stream engine or similar. I'd go with DLink myself if I wasn't attached to my Sonic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top