From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mark Williams (MWP)" Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:54:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] What is wrong here (continued...)? Message-Id: <20041224074200.GA4100@linux.comp> List-Id: References: <20041223141235.GA6831@linux.comp> In-Reply-To: <20041223141235.GA6831@linux.comp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org > On Thursday 23 December 2004 17:52, Mark Williams (MWP) wrote: > > > >As you can see class 25 has priority 8, so all other traffic should get > > > >preference, which is not happening. > > > >It almost seems like all the priorities are reversed... > > > > > > Err... I haven't checked the docs, but I think that's because the > > > priorities are the other way around... > > > > Nope, the HTB man page says: > > > > prio priority > > In the round-robin process, classes with the lowest > > priority field are tried for packets first. Manda- > > tory. > > > > I did actually try reversed priorities after i made the graph, etc though. > > It just made things worse... so they are in the correct order. > > If you have classes with different prio's, you have to know what's going on. > The class with the lowest prio has the highest priority. This means that > that class will get the lowes delay ONLY if this class is not sending more > then the configured rate. This also means that this class will get the > remaining bandwidth of the parent AFTER the other child classes are served. Ok, so priorities are ignored as soon as used bandwidth of a class goes above the "rate" setting? Thanks. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/