From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Furniss Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:55:30 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] HTB MPU Message-Id: <40A49792.6@dsl.pipex.com> List-Id: References: <40A37E1B.8060604@dsl.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <40A37E1B.8060604@dsl.pipex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Jason Boxman wrote: > On Thursday 13 May 2004 13:28, Andreas Klauer wrote: > >>Am Thursday 13 May 2004 16:38 schrieb Andreas Klauer: >> >>>Am Thursday 13 May 2004 15:54 schrieb Andy Furniss: >>> >>>>I've just noticed that there is a patch on devik's site which does mpu >>>>and overhead. >>> >>>I'll give it a try. Thanks for the hint. >> >>Well, patching was a little difficult... it didn't like the debian patch >>and I didn't succeed in joining the two patches together because of the >>weird inject stuff. But anyway. It seems to work, and it looks useful, so >>I added it to the "Hacks" section of my Fair NAT script together with a >>patched binary. > > > Nifty. > > But how do you determine what your minimum packet unit (MPU) is? How about > overhead for a PPPoE connection? If you can get a cell count from your modem you can work it out with ping. I don't know what your pppoe is. > > With shaping I can max my upstream and still maintain ~ 120ms ping times, but > I'd like to get it down to around ~ 70ms. > Your upstream worst case depends on your bitrate and your MTU. If it's 128k you add about 90ms, 256k 45ms for 1500b packets. What's yours? Andy. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/