From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Rosi-Kessel Subject: Re: HTTP slower than SSH on client behind iptables Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:11:35 -0500 Message-ID: <43DF7017.8030008@rosi-kessel.org> References: <20060131033519.GA32564@bostoncoop.net> <43DF299D.9070105@prosyst.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig0D6D08303B42A832D4DCEC72" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <43DF299D.9070105@prosyst.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig0D6D08303B42A832D4DCEC72 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------060602010109050602080402" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060602010109050602080402 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (sorry, should have sent this to the list) Boryan Yotov wrote: >> On the NAT box, my Internet connection goes up to about 700 kilobytes = per >> second, regardless of the protocol used (e.g., ssh or http).=20 >> On clients behind the NAT box, however, HTTP connections seem to top o= ut >> around 70 kilobytes per second. ssh connections (e.g., rsync) get the >> full throughput of the Internet connection. > Are you sure, you don't have some kind of a traffic shaping > active on the NAT gateway's internal interface? > For example: If tc is used, you could check that using: > tc class show dev > and > tc filter show dev I do have traffic shaping on the *external* interface, but it is not port= dependent. tc class|filter show dev gives an empty response. Also, when I clear the queue (I use wondershaper, so running wondershaper= clear), it seems I still have the same problem. =2E..But is there some way that outbound traffic shaping on the external facing interface could somehow impact *inbound* HTTP traffic on an intern= al client connected to the internal facing interface? --=20 Adam Rosi-Kessel http://adam.rosi-kessel.org --------------060602010109050602080402 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="signature.asc" LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0NClZlcnNpb246IEdudVBHIHYxLjIuNSAo TWluZ1czMikNCkNvbW1lbnQ6IFVzaW5nIEdudVBHIHdpdGggTW96aWxsYSAtIGh0dHA6Ly9l bmlnbWFpbC5tb3pkZXYub3JnDQoNCmlEOERCUUZEMzJKeGRUZjNaa2xRNnFZUkF2a3NBSjRv WEdQK216NWhzV0VwTGd6T2djdXJFdXRyaUFDYUFpY24NClpoQkVicG9hNGJRUTQ0cWxOeUNi SzhvPQ0KPUNHZjENCi0tLS0tRU5EIFBHUCBTSUdOQVRVUkUtLS0tLQ0KDQo= --------------060602010109050602080402-- --------------enig0D6D08303B42A832D4DCEC72 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD33AZdTf3ZklQ6qYRAktJAKCP1K515OmixSRura1BkHlRQwIvfgCgnCX6 3LX4MuXi/xq+2T4GYnKQKBg= =SiUN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig0D6D08303B42A832D4DCEC72--