[LARTC] Which option is better

[LARTC] Which option is better

[DervishD]

    Hi all :)

    Currently I'm shaping the traffic that goes to my ADSL router,
using HTB.

.    Root (HTB) 1:
.    |
.    |------------------------|
.    LAN (1:1)                ADSL router (1:2)
.    90Mbit/90MBit            200000bit/200000bit
.                             |
.                             (Here go some children classes)

    I find the above a bit overkill, since LAN and ADSL classes won't
NEVER borrow nor lend bandwidth to one another. Moreover, every time
I set up my traffic control I get the same warning:

    HTB: quantum of class 10001 is big. Consider r2q change.

    Of course it is big!, it's my LAN class, limited to 90Mbit/s...

    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?

    Thanks a lot in advance :)

    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

Re: [LARTC] Which option is better

[Andreas Klauer]

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. So there is 
no need to borrow/lend ever. HTB is used for bandwidth limiting only here, 
probably except for "(some children classes)", whatever they are.

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.

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.

>     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.

>     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.

Regards,
Andreas Klauer
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] Which option is better

[DervishD]

    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