Re: [LARTC] Which option is better

[DervishD <lartc@dervishd.net>]

    Hi Andreas :)

 * Andreas Klauer <Andreas.Klauer@metamorpher.de> dixit:
> On Friday 02 December 2005 21:16, DervishD wrote:
> >     I find the above a bit overkill, since LAN and ADSL classes won't
> > NEVER borrow nor lend bandwidth to one another.
> They won't do that because the classes got the same rate/ceil.

    I did that on purpose, just in case I add another class above
them in the future. Right now they cannot borrow/lend even if the
rate is less than the ceil, because they are root classes, am I
wrong? I got that idea from the HTB documentation.

> HTB is used for bandwidth limiting only here, probably except for
> "(some children classes)", whatever they are.

    Exactly. The children classes are a couple of classes to limit
the rate for my ftp server, etc. There I want share, but on the top
classes I just want to do limiting.

> I'm doing it practically the same way, except I don't like setups
> with more than one root class, so I actually got a fat root class
> with the device speed as rate above those two. In my personal
> opinion, having two root classes in HTB implies that these two are
> completely independent, which is not the case since they have to
> share the same interface after all.

    Interesting...

> And I think it's not overkill at all, since this is the only way to
> ensure that LAN traffic (file transfers and such) leave a bandwidth
> window open for the more fragile internet traffic.

    Well, in fact I didn't use 100Mbit as the rate/ceil of the LAN
class for two reasons:

    - I don't think my cheap Ethernet card will never get that
throughput even in a sunny day XDD

    - I want to leave a bit of bandwidth for the other PC in the LAN,
which is running Windoze and, I don't know why, doesn't "fight" for
the Ethernet bus...

> >     HTB: quantum of class 10001 is big. Consider r2q change.
> >
> >     Of course it is big!, it's my LAN class, limited to 90Mbit/s...
> 
> You can get rid of this message by specifying the quantum for this
> class directly.

    I know, I just wanted to show an additional advantage of using
another approach for classes instead HTB O:)
 
> >     Is there any better alternative to the above, given the great
> > difference in rates and the fact that I won't NEVER share bandwidth
> > between 1:1 and 1:2?
> 
> I don't have any problems at all with this solution, so I never
> bothered looking for something better. In fact, I think it's a very
> good solution, and if you're shaping using nothing but HTB, it's
> probably even the best solution you can get.

    Well, then I will run it as-is, although I take note of your idea
of putting another class on top of my two main classes, just in case
I want to shape things differently in the future.

    Thanks for your answer! :)

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net
http://www.pleyades.net & http://www.gotesdelluna.net
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to...
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc