[LARTC] has anyone tried adsl-optmizer kernel patches for dsl

[LARTC] has anyone tried adsl-optmizer kernel patches for dsl

[sophana]

Hi

I'm using wondershaper like script. But noticed imperfect scheduling.

By googling, I found some patches that takes the aal5 atm overhead in 
the scheduling algorithms.
http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/ADSL-optimizer/

Before trying it, has anyone tried these patches? they apply on 2.4.29 
kernel and 2.6.9 TC. I use centos4 with a 2.6 kernel, so I can't try 
these easily.

Thanks

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

Re: [LARTC] has anyone tried adsl-optmizer kernel patches for dsl

[Andy Furniss]

sophana wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I'm using wondershaper like script. But noticed imperfect scheduling.
> 
> By googling, I found some patches that takes the aal5 atm overhead in 
> the scheduling algorithms.
> http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/ADSL-optimizer/
> 
> Before trying it, has anyone tried these patches? they apply on 2.4.29 
> kernel and 2.6.9 TC. I use centos4 with a 2.6 kernel, so I can't try 
> these easily.

They should be OK as long as you are sure about your overheads.

I use something similar and use ceil 286kbit while synced at 288kbit 
without problems.

If your modem is connected by eth rather than ppp then htb/whatever will 
see the packet size as ip len + 14 - so you need to account for that.

I think that produces a corner case (overhead < 14) where you would need 
to put in a negative number - I don't think that will work, but haven't 
tried.

Andy.

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

Re: [LARTC] has anyone tried adsl-optmizer kernel patches for dsl

[Markus Schulz]

On Wednesday 16 November 2005 16:03, Andy Furniss wrote:
> sophana wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm using wondershaper like script. But noticed imperfect
> > scheduling.
> >
> > By googling, I found some patches that takes the aal5 atm overhead
> > in the scheduling algorithms.
> > http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/ADSL-optimizer/
> >
> > Before trying it, has anyone tried these patches? they apply on
> > 2.4.29 kernel and 2.6.9 TC. I use centos4 with a 2.6 kernel, so I
> > can't try these easily.
>
> They should be OK as long as you are sure about your overheads.
>
> I use something similar and use ceil 286kbit while synced at 288kbit
> without problems.
>
> If your modem is connected by eth rather than ppp then htb/whatever
> will see the packet size as ip len + 14 - so you need to account for
> that.

can you explain this a bit more please?

> I think that produces a corner case (overhead < 14) where you would
> need to put in a negative number - I don't think that will work, but
> haven't tried.

should be easy to patch in. Overhead is only a simple variable which 
will be added in htb/* module for each paket. Only sign/unsign problem  
should be considered.

msc
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] has anyone tried adsl-optmizer kernel patches for dsl

[Andy Furniss]

Markus Schulz wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 November 2005 16:03, Andy Furniss wrote:
> 
>>sophana wrote:
>>
>>>Hi
>>>
>>>I'm using wondershaper like script. But noticed imperfect
>>>scheduling.
>>>
>>>By googling, I found some patches that takes the aal5 atm overhead
>>>in the scheduling algorithms.
>>>http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/ADSL-optimizer/
>>>
>>>Before trying it, has anyone tried these patches? they apply on
>>>2.4.29 kernel and 2.6.9 TC. I use centos4 with a 2.6 kernel, so I
>>>can't try these easily.
>>
>>They should be OK as long as you are sure about your overheads.
>>
>>I use something similar and use ceil 286kbit while synced at 288kbit
>>without problems.
>>
>>If your modem is connected by eth rather than ppp then htb/whatever
>>will see the packet size as ip len + 14 - so you need to account for
>>that.
> 
> 
> can you explain this a bit more please?

It's because htb uses skb->len for packet size and if you shape on an 
eth interface this is ip length + 14, but it's just ip length if you 
shape on ppp/vlan etc.

You can see this by looking at htb counters and sending fixed size packets.

> 
> 
>>I think that produces a corner case (overhead < 14) where you would
>>need to put in a negative number - I don't think that will work, but
>>haven't tried.
> 
> 
> should be easy to patch in. Overhead is only a simple variable which 
> will be added in htb/* module for each paket. Only sign/unsign problem  
> should be considered.

Yep  - you just need to be aware of it and I can't recall it being 
mentioned in the thesis - I have only tested on 2.6 kernels.

Andy.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc