From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Furniss Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:33:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [LARTC] has anyone tried adsl-optmizer kernel patches Message-Id: <4385DD31.9060109@dsl.pipex.com> List-Id: References: <43846D68.2050709@yahoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <43846D68.2050709@yahoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Markus Schulz wrote: > On Wednesday 23 November 2005 14:23, Sophana Kok wrote: > >>Markus Schulz wrote: >> >>>On Wednesday 16 November 2005 16:03, Andy Furniss wrote: >>> >>>>I use something similar and use ceil 286kbit while synced at >>>>288kbit without problems. >> >>What thing similar do you use? I don't understand why it is not in >>the kernel already. > > > sounds like he has calculated the constant overhead for each htb-class > and set the ceil value to according this. this is equivalent to the > stuff from adsl-optimizer. in both ways you need to setup classes for > packets with same average size or it won't work. Most important is the > class for ACK-only packets cause they have the biggest overhead. > correct me if i'm wrong. Nothing to do with htb classes, though you are right about small packets being a pain - they typically use 2 x 53 byte atm cells. The patches make htb lookup the delay of one less than the aal5 length in a table that is generated by a patched tc so the delay returned is the delay of the packet when it is atm cells. > > >>>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. >> >>How? > > > this refers to the possible negativ overhead mentioned from Andy Furniss > by use of pppoe. It's pppoa, pppoe has > 14 overhead. Andy. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc