From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Furniss Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:11:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Theory test Message-Id: <4395B823.8010205@dsl.pipex.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Kenneth Kalmer wrote: > ADSL, 512kbps down and 256kbps up. Parent for the internet traffic is > set at 500kbps, to make sure it becomes the bottleneck... I used to use 400 when I had 512 ingress, so I am amazed that works - but then you say ingress not the problem. > I attach an esfq to each child HTB, but as you say it would be less > relevenat for egress... Were it ingress I woud say have just one class with esfq for sharing out bulk traffic per user. >>Do you know what type of connection you have eg pppoa/e or bridged ip >>etc. I assume whatever it is ends up as atm cells? > > Barely, as said above it's 512/256 VPN. Underneath the VPN it runs > PPPoE, but the service simulates a leased line, static ip's, the > works... I bet there are alot of overheads on that - and if you are pushing the rate close to limit like you are on ingress I suspect you are going overlimits. Even if you test with an upload and find a rate that seems OK it will all fall apart when the traffic consists of small packets. You have real ips aswell - so all your students can become p2p nodes = lots of small packets. I would consider using htb's mpu and overhead on each rate/ceil mpu with pppoe/atm is going to be 106 bytes - overhead I am not sure as it's not normal dsl - if it were you could patch tc/htb to do it perfectly. Often your atm level sync rate will be a bit higher than the advertised rate. If you can get your kit to tell you what that is it will be helpful. Andy. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc