From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Furniss Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 01:03:18 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] qdisc's useless in my case? Message-Id: <43C45956.2060600@dsl.pipex.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Andr=E9 Matuschek wrote: > Now what I worry about ist if this has any effect at all. Maybe the=20 > kernel sends > all the Packets from the LAN (from eth0) to the to cable-modems, which are > connected via 100Mbit crossover-cable and the modem queues the packets =20 > itself > and drops the ones exceeding the maximum upload rate. With an constant =20 > empty > queue in the kernel it would make no differences if fifo_fast or sfq is = > the qdisc, right? >=20 > So my question is: Am I right? Is it useless to assign sfq to eth1 &=20 > eth2? What would > be an alternative solution? Yes you are right. You need to use htb/hfsc/cbq on both eths and limit=20 the traffic headed for the internet to < each cable rate. You could use=20 sfq as part of the setup, it is better to try and seperate interactive=20 traffic from bulk and only use sfq on the bulk. You could also limit=20 inbound traffic by shaping on the lan facing eth (if it goes to both lan=20 eths then it's more complicated but possible). Andy. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc