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

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

[Sophana Kok]

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.

>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?

The ppp over aal5 atm encapsulation is in almost all adsl lines isn't it?
Isn't it standard?
This makes a huge number of lines in the world.
Are there other patches ?
or distributions that already include these patches?

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

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

[Markus Schulz]

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.

> >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. But i don't understand whencever the -14 Bytes should 
come from. so i asked for explanation. 
If signed overhead is really needed, it can be easy added into the 
patches you meantioned (http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/ADSL-optimizer/). 
Cause these patches only add a constant offset to a htb class which 
will be set with modified iproute tc utility.

> The ppp over aal5 atm encapsulation is in almost all adsl lines isn't
> it? Isn't it standard?

yes, i think so. therefore i asked Andy to explain his objection.

> This makes a huge number of lines in the world.
> Are there other patches ?
> or distributions that already include these patches?

Don't know a distribution which already include these patches.
But the effort for a selfmade kernel with these patches is maintainable.

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

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

[Andy Furniss]

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.

I use my own based on the tc tweak that Ed Wildgoose posted to the list, 
but patching htb aswell so it's perfect (the tc alone patch is a cell 
too big for some packet sizes)

> 
>> 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?
> 
> The ppp over aal5 atm encapsulation is in almost all adsl lines isn't it?
> Isn't it standard?

In jeesper's thesis there is a table - Knowing you overhead can be 
tricky - but you can test, best if your modem gives cell counters or 
even if it doesn't on adsl you may be able to see differences in 
throughput/latency if you look hard enough.

> This makes a huge number of lines in the world.
> Are there other patches ?
> or distributions that already include these patches?

I don't think so, patching is easy you need to test and know your 
overheads aswell.

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

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

[Andy Furniss]

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

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

[sophana]

Andy Furniss wrote:

> Markus Schulz wrote:
>
>> 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.

I'm sorry, but that does not seem such simple.
In pppoa (ppp over aal5), the packets are atm cell aligned, so the 
overhead depends on the packet size. It is not linear at all.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc