Re: [LARTC] Questions about IMQ's stability

[Andre Correa <andre.correa@pobox.com>]

Sorry, but I have to disagree... We've discussing this issue at linuximq 
list and it is not obvious that the postrouting hook is the culprit for 
all the reported problems. I've being using postrouting for long with no 
side effects, no crashs, no oops. More investigation on it is needed.

What is a known issue is that one should not try to touch localy 
generated traffic with IMQ. This is known to cause problems, so you 
better not try it.

Andre



Roy wrote:
> IMQ is quite stable when used on ingress only 
> just dont touch postrouting and it will be ok
> you can use either old version, either my new one
> which does not need to patch kernel and iptables
> you can find it at http://pupa.da.ru/imq/
> (but it may be incompatible with some conntrack modules)
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andre Correa" <andre.correa@pobox.com>
> To: "Jason Tackaberry" <tack@auc.ca>
> Cc: "lartc" <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl>
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [LARTC] Questions about IMQ's stability
> 
> 
> 
>>Hi Jason, right now I don't think anybody can assure stability on IMQ. 
>>My experience is that IMQ works fine in my enviroment that is a 2.4.23 
>>PPPoE concentrator with ~70 users... It is up and running for more then 
>>a month without any problems.
>>
>>What I would suggest you is to make some stability tests in a lab before 
>>putting it into production...
>>
>>What kernel version will you use? It seens that 2.4.23 is the best bet 
>>for now.
>>
>>IMQ has being unmaintained but there is a groups of people trying to get 
>>it on its way again. You can reach the brand new group at: 
>>http://www.linuximq.net ... There is
>>not much new things yet, the work 
>>is just starting, but you, and everybody else, is more then welcome to 
>>join us there and share your results and needs.
>>
>>tks and good luck
>>
>>Andre Correa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Jason Tackaberry wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>There have been a number of threads lately discussing IMQ's
>>
>>stability
>>
>>>(or lack thereof).  I am about to roll out a new router and I
>>
>>quite
>>
>>>badly need IMQ's functionality.  This is a production
>>
>>environment,
>>
>>>though, and random panics of course aren't acceptable.
>>>
>>>My question is are there any circumstances under which IMQ is
>>
>>_stable_? 
>>
>>>The router will have about 6 interfaces, 2 of which will be
>>
>>to
>>
>>>(separate) upstream ISPs.  The router must be able to manage
>>
>>the
>>
>>>bandwidth fairly between the remaining four interfaces, so I'll
>>
>>need
>>
>>>IMQ.  Perhaps there is another solution?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Jason.
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
>>http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
>>
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/