Skip navigation
Login   |   Register
Cisco Learning Home > Certifications > Routing & Switching (CCNA) > Discussions

_Communities

20732 Views 13 Replies Latest reply: Jun 5, 2012 4:03 AM by Prashanth RSS

Currently Being Moderated

no fair-queue?

Dec 4, 2010 2:47 AM

Dada Khalander 114 posts since
Sep 28, 2009

Hi All,

 

Can anyone please explain why do we use the command 'no fair-queue' while configuring an interface on a router?

 

 

(config-if)# no fair-queue

 

 

 

Thanks & Regards,

S. Dada Khalander.

 

 

(config-if)# no fair-queue

(config-if)# no fair-queue

  • Conwyn 9,675 posts since
    Sep 10, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    1. Dec 4, 2010 4:13 AM (in response to Dada Khalander)
    Re: no fair-queue?

    Hi Dada

     

    So we do not implement fair queuing.

     

    So we get first in first out FIFO

     

    Regards Conwyn

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register
  • Conwyn 9,675 posts since
    Sep 10, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    3. Dec 4, 2010 5:21 AM (in response to Dada Khalander)
    Re: no fair-queue?

    Hi Dada

     

    What more clarity do you require?

     

    Regards Conwyn

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register
  • Warren Sullivan - CCNP 938 posts since
    Jun 4, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    4. Dec 4, 2010 5:31 AM (in response to Conwyn)
    Re: no fair-queue?

    what it means.......lol

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register
  • Conwyn 9,675 posts since
    Sep 10, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Re: no fair-queue?

    Hi Warren

     

    Is that what I said in post number one?

     

    Regards Conwyn

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register
  • Paul Stewart  -  CCIE Security 7,570 posts since
    Jul 18, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    6. Dec 4, 2010 5:57 AM (in response to Dada Khalander)
    Re: no fair-queue?

    Queuing is what happens when traffic bursts beyond the physical capabilities of the tx of an interface.  So if you take a burst of traffic and you have a T1, queuing may hold back some traffic.  With a T1, the default is to do a fair-queue.  In other words, a fair use of queuing.  This means that different sessions get their own little different queues.  Since a lot of our traffic is TCP and tcp drops and delays slow down a session, this allows say a telnet session to get a fair shake when it is combined with a ftp session.

     

    When we turn fair-queue off, the there is a fixed queue for everything.  Conversations with more bandwidth usage can consume more than there fair share of bandwidth.  Things are sort of statistically equal as far as the drop is concerned.  However when you overlay this equality into a protocol like TCP, unequality happens when the conversation characteristics are different.

     

    So why do we disable?  Usueally because it works easily.  Think about the fair-queue configuration.  It basically creates mini queues.   So the question is how many?  What happens when we have a new conversation, but all of the queues are being used?  The answer is that the number of queues is configurable.  When the queues are all in use, new sessions are dropped.  Disabling it (no fair-queue) is a easy way to disable this behavior and give a per-packet fair access to the queue.  Not necessarily the best solution because then the telnet session doesn't have equal access to bandwidth.  But it is better than new conversations being dropped.

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register
  • krait 122 posts since
    Jan 8, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Re: no fair-queue?

    @Paul

    Can you clarify a bit for me. You say that that disabling fair-que would be better than new conversations being dropped.

    I agree, but if the FIFO que fills upp the same will happen.

    So the question is whats the difference, except that we dont have the fair bw assigment.

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register
  • Conwyn 9,675 posts since
    Sep 10, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    8. Dec 4, 2010 8:40 AM (in response to krait)
    Re: no fair-queue?

    Hi Krait

     

    Assume transaction one uses queue one and transaction n uses queue n. Now queue one might be at its max capacity so data for this transaction will be dropped (it is a bit more complex but ignore for this example). Queue two might be empty so transaction two can go into queue two. It might be low data such as telnet. The queue are assigned and eventually we run out of queues. Queue one is 100% full Queue two is 10% full so there is space in the router buffers.

     

    With no fair queue then queue one is the only queue and has all the buffer space so theoretically a FTP could hog the queue but after the first drop the TCP window would change to slow it down.

     

    Now in reality no network designer would want queuing because the users would complain and also queue service is based on the IP priority. Furthermore I talked about 100% but the algorithms jump in at lower percentages. You can manual assign by ACL to queues.

     

    If you do have a TCP session hogging the circuit then you can police it.

     

    If you are shifting data at very high speed then your buffers would quickly fill up once the line started to get above 60% so generally you do not see much queuing nowadays.

     

    Regards Conwyn

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register
  • krait 122 posts since
    Jan 8, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    9. Dec 4, 2010 9:10 AM (in response to Conwyn)
    Re: no fair-queue?

    Conwyn:

    You seem to be talking about cbwfq/llq and wred.

    Im still not sure how that would apply to fair queue on default traffic and turning it off.

    The question still is why we would want to turn it off and why that would be an improvement. Ok so there might be some unused queue space with wfq, but by turning it off it seems that we risk the ftp traffic(example) filling up the queue anyways with the added downside to the other flows.

    I was hoping that Paul (or someone else) might have some RL example where turning of the fair queing on an interface might be as good idea. Since my point being that the single flow(queue) will probably fill upp anyway and we end up just loosing the "fairness" of it.

     

    Edit: I guess it might come down to there being no practical reason for turning it off, and that the option is there simply due to legacy.

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register
  • Paul Stewart  -  CCIE Security 7,570 posts since
    Jul 18, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    10. Dec 4, 2010 10:31 AM (in response to krait)
    Re: no fair-queue?

    With FIFO, yes packets are dropped when the queue is full. These will be dropped based on when they would otherwise be queued. The affected conversations should be sort of random based on this fact. This causes tcp to slow down and eventually it is sort of equally unfair (if you follow that). All sessions will slow down. With a wfq without adequate queues, new queues cannot be created for new sessions. Therefore all packets are dropped for the new session. I'm not advocating FIFO over wfq. We just need to understand these things and configure to meet the needs as closely as possible.

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register
  • nicholas_ong 94 posts since
    Jun 28, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Re: no fair-queue?

    Hi Paul,

     

    It sure sounds like a lot of thought process goes into deciding whether fair queuing should be done or not.  Is there any quick rule of what should be used if we do not have time to do a detail analyse on the network?

     

    Cheers.

    Nicholas Ong

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register
  • Brian 2,971 posts since
    Aug 17, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    12. Dec 15, 2010 8:54 PM (in response to nicholas_ong)
    Re: no fair-queue?

    Yes, if you are doing QoS on your serial links then you MUST use queuing.  Cannot have QoS without queuing.  If you have a lot of high data rate sessions or other bandwidth hungry applications you want to use queuing and QoS.

     

    Otherwise if you used FIFO (no fair-queue) on the serial interface with these types of bandwidth hungry applications they will consume all the bandwidth and starve others.  With FIFO, think of it as a single line we all must wait in to buy U2 tickets, whereas queuing allows multiple lines to the ticket counter.

     

    Low-speed links default to WFQ
    high-speed links default to FIFO

     

    The reason behind FIFO on high-speed links such as DS3, OC3, FE, GE is that the link "should" have adaquate bandwidth available and congestion "should" be minimal in most cases. 

     

    HTH

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register
  • Prashanth 1 posts since
    Aug 12, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Re: no fair-queue?

    I am working in SP environment your explanation help me to clear my doubts - Thanks!

    Join this discussion now: Login / Register

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (1)