Re: [LARTC] HTB is nor fair when 'borrowing? *bug* in HTB or some

[Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@dsl.pipex.com>]

pljosh wrote:
> Ed Wildgoose wrote:
> 
>> Hmm, interesting.  Can you switch the order of your IP mappings around 
>> on this test so that you can prove that it is some feature of HTB that 
>> user1 always gets more bandwidth, and no something about that machine 
>> (ie if you swap ip's for user1 and 3 that it still remains (the new) 
>> user1 who gets all the b/w?
>>
>> Obviously this should not be so, just curious to eliminate other 
>> possibilities
>>
>> Ed W
> 
> 
> I did it already. When I set filter to direct 192.168.3.4 packets to 
> 1:60 and 192.168.3.6 to 1:40 then lines on my graph switch: now blue is 
> over red...
> The same switch happens when i set higher prio of 1:60...
> So it means than when two classes at the same level have same "prio" 
> then class with lower minor id has higher priority than classes with 
> lower minor id... So there is no possibility to set them to be equal 
> when borrowing occurs.
> 
> Now I am in trouble as I am writing my thesis and I wanted to show in my 
> paper that HTB is excellent to share BW between users... what am I to 
> write about this case?
> 
> BTW: maybe someone could repeat my experiment? Maybe it is something 
> wrong with my hadrware or some unbelievable coincidence?

I just tested with my script and also see a 5-8% advantage for the lower 
  handle class.

I wouldn't call it a bug though - HTB is written for high traffic setups 
   and trade off needs to be made between perfect behaviour and CPU 
usage and you say it gets better with more classes.

Andy.


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