Couple requests

Suggest improvements and new features for Gargoyle.

Moderator: Moderators

Daeron
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:30 am

Couple requests

Postby Daeron » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:31 am

QoS Upload/download page:

  • When adding new rules, allow multiple ports to be specified.

    This is technically possible already, but only if the ports are sequental, for example ports 1400-1500. However specifying 80,443,8080 does not work.

    Having to add each of those manually clutters the list of rules, takes a relatively long time to set up and is hard to maintain. Think of all the ports individual games might want to use. It could be covered with a single rule, but instead you have to add them each manually, generally multiple per game as well.

  • Add "Connection size smaller than X" option besides the existing "Connection size reaches X".

    Suppose you want to prioritize traffic on port 53 as long as the connection size is smaller than 5KB. Instead of simply adding just that (Port: 53, Connection size <5KB, class: high), you are forced to create a rule that puts all traffic into the high class first, then another one on top of it which will deprioritize the traffic if the connection size reaches 5KB.

  • Show calculated values for %BW:

    The router already knows the Total Bandwidth and the percent bandwidth that is assigned to each class. This could be shown in the UI as well.

  • Simplified ACC:

    For some reason, ACC never worked very well for me. Under heavy load with ACC enabled my router becomes extremely sluggish. The result is ACC throttling itself to the minimum bandwidth it can set and stays there. I tried experimenting with advanced settings or leaving it alone but it never worked well enough.

    Meanwhile, if I turn ACC off and set up a reasonable limit (90% or so) myself, the router is able to stay at perfectly acceptable levels of performance, both using almost all the bandwidth available and keeping the pings ingame reasonable.

    However I still like ACC in principle and to my knowledge even if you have the bandwidth available (my download speeds are fairly stable), it can still be beneficial to limit this to lets say 2/3 of your normal values to optimize for latency.

    So the simplified ACC would simply check whether a minRTT class is active and would flip the bandwidth limit to a secondary value, set by the user. This would mean no algorithms or constant pinging involved which might be contributing to my slowdowns (maybe my CPU is too weak).

    Obviously the limit could not adjust realtime to loads if your internet suddenly started dying (one of the selling points of using ACC), but that wasn't the point for me anyway. It would also mean that the initial adjustment period (the pings first have to deteriorate heavily for ACC to gradually throttle back) would not be a problem with this implementation.

    I think that's something a lot of users would find beneficial and would be willing to take the hit to theoretical maximum bandwidth you could reach with regular ACC compared to this static alternative.

Connection list page:

  • Allow filtering by host/IP:

    Seems like there are some sorting options but they don't seem to work well enough. I'd like to limit the list shown after picking a specific host/IP so I can only see the results from that. This would help to hunt down ports used by applications more easily.


QoS/BW distribution pages:

  • Show kbps and total bandwidth used:

    Currently the pages QoS Upload/Download setting pages offer a lot more valuable info than these, largely because kbps is shown and not just the relative percentages among classes.

pbix
Developer
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:09 pm

Re: Couple requests

Postby pbix » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:24 pm

Thanks for the ideas.

The only comment I will make is regarding the ACC simplification idea. Fundamentally your CPU is overloaded. This means that nothing on the router should be expected to work correctly. QoS requires considerable CPU power to handle high traffic flow. On the other hand ACC itself does not require hardly any CPU power. If your idea was adopted you would still be left with a QoS system that was not working. I do not think you would find it satisfactory and doubt you would notice any difference. The only solution is to treat yourself to a more powerful router and enjoy.
Netgear WNDR3700v2
TP Link 1043ND v3
TP-Link TL-WDR3600 v1
Buffalo WZR-HP-G300NH2
WRT54G-TM

Daeron
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:30 am

Re: Couple requests

Postby Daeron » Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:35 pm

Thanks for the response.

My router handles the QoS rules just fine on their own though, even at sustained full speed downloads with many connections etc. It's only when ACC is turned on where it'll quickly grind to a halt under pressure.

Both the loading of the settings page becomes extremely slow and - presumably due the slow response time - ACC gradually lowers the link limit to either to the lowest it can set or close to it. The latter also happens if there was no significant traffic per say (only occasional one-off downloads but mainly browsing/watching videos) over a long period of time.

If I turn off ACC, it quickly becomes normal again. So I'm not sure what's going on here. But I don't have many useful insights to provide on it either. Maybe I'll try to research it further at some point.

d3fz
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:34 pm

Re: Couple requests

Postby d3fz » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:38 am

I really like some of the ideas, any news about this ?

Since i use/monitor QoS pages quite a lot, it would be really helpful to see these ideas implemented:

- When adding new rules, allow multiple ports to be specified.
- Show calculated values for %BW.
TP-Link Archer C7 v2 - Gargoyle 1.10.X
TP-Link WR842ND v2 - Gargoyle 1.10.X
TP-Link RE450 AC v2 - Stock FW 1.0.4
TP-Link WA850RE v1.2 - LEDE 17.01.1

Tired of Chrome? Try Vivaldi - an advanced browser built for power users


Return to “Feature Requests”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest