From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andre Correa Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:23:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Simply IMQ Message-Id: <40EAEE19.3070406@pobox.com> List-Id: References: <003a01c4635f$f4cc9e30$0201a8c0@jabbacom.net> In-Reply-To: <003a01c4635f$f4cc9e30$0201a8c0@jabbacom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Walt, www.linuximq.net version is the evolution from Devik->McHardy's IMQ. Roy started a project where he developed his own implementation of IMQ like functionality. I can't tell you more about his version because I never had a chance to give it a try. The IMQ version from www.linuximq.net that comes from the original IMQ implementation really needs patching the kernel and iptables sources. Andre Walt Wyndroski wrote: > So you are saying that I do not need to patch my kernel? I do not understand > that statement. I had to recompile my kernel with the imq patch as well as > iptables before IMQ would work for me. The way I have always understood IMQ > is that it is a virtual network device, a virtual network card if you will. > Therefore it seems to me that egress would apply since iptables is only > being used to redirect traffic through the virtual IMQ device. IPROUTE2/TC > would then shape traffic leaving the virutal IMQ device (egress traffic). > This is how I understand IMQ. If I am wrong, please set me straight. > >>>From what you are saying, either IMQ is completely unstable or iptables > and/or the tcp/ip stack is unstable. Not that I am a guru on the internals > of iptables or the Linux tcp/ip stack, but I think iptables and the Linux > tcp/ip stack is most likely stable. To be fair, I must admit that I have not > had a full opportunity to test out your version of IMQ either, only the > prior versions. > > Who's version of IMQ resides on www.linuximq.org ? > > Walt Wyndroski > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roy" > To: "Walt Wyndroski" ; > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 10:34 AM > Subject: Re: [LARTC] Simply IMQ > > > >>Probably I was the last one who changed imq code. >>so here is are the facts: >>Basicaly all imq versions are usefull under aproriate condition, whis is > > do > >>not touch localy generated traffic. >>ingress nad egress terms are not correct for imq, because it is iptables >>module, not nic. >>Just my version hooks on different iptables hooks, and simply ignores all >>local generated traffic. It cant be crashed with incorrect rules. >>basicaly only advantage of my version is nore clean way to hook on > > iptables, > >>code is same for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, and no need to patch, stability > > should > >>be same on both kernels. >>Now it is hard to say why imq crash, because crashes occur in various > > places > >>not related to this module, it seems like memory leak, but does not like > > imq > >>can have such bug. I suppose there is somethisng wrong with iptables or > > tcp > >>code itself, since imq does big mess with packets by droping and > > reordering > >>then alot. >> >>Anyway imq does not work as I expected, basicaly all forward shaping is >>quite hard, I was trying to make tcp traffic predictor because else it is >>too late. >>It must be sart enough to work I need to adjust predictor delay, and > > packets > >>size. what makes it quite hard to implement. >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Walt Wyndroski" >>To: >>Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:48 PM >>Subject: [LARTC] Simply IMQ >> >> >> >>>I've followed this list for quite a long time and have even >>>posted a couple >>>of times. I used the early versions of IMQ from Devik (I think that was >> >>his >> >>>name), and it worked well. I only ever got the chance to implement it in >> >>my >> >>>test environment. I now need to implement it in my production > > environment. > >>>My Linux core router has nine interfaces and has a 27 megabit connection >> >>to >> >>>the internet. It is quite busy much of the time. It runs Fedora Core 1 > > now > >>>but will most likely be upgraded to Fedora Core 2 in the next month or > > so. > >>>Now with all that said, here is my question. I see that maintenance of > > IMQ > >>>has been passed on a couple of times. I see some people say that IMQ is >> >>not >> >>>stable and should not be put into a production environment. My use of > > IMQ > >>a >> >>>year ago invovled only egress qdiscs using HTB and SFQ because the > > egress > >>>qdiscs were much more powerful and better than the ingress qdisc. The > > only > >>>problem that I ever had with IMQ was using the iptables target with both >>>PREROUTING and POSTROUTING. I see Roy has posted that IMQ essentially >>>crashes when doing egress shaping. Is this correct? I've always > > understood > >>>egress as outbound shaping/filtering and ingress as inbound >>>shaping/filtering. I say that because I saw in an earlier post by Roy > > that > >>>he changed his terminology to INPUT,OUTPUT, and FORWARD. Was he not > > using > >>>the terms egress and ingress correctly? I see that the current 'big' >> >>problem >> >>>is touching locally generated traffic. What I need to know is which >> >>version >> >>>of IMQ is most stable for kernel 2.6? Or even kernel2.4? Is it Devera's? >>>McHardy's? Correa's? or Roy's? Or should I just leave it alone? My >> >>apologies >> >>>if I got names wrong. >>> >>>This is probably a long email just to ask that question, but I can't > > seem > >>to >> >>>find an answer from the list archives. I downloaded the whole 46 mb >> >>archive >> >>>and essentially read 90% of the posts related to IMQ. I'm just trying to >> >>get >> >>>a good understanding of what's happening with/to IMQ. >>> >>>Thank you in advance for any advice. >>> >>>Walt Wyndroski >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/