From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andy Furniss <lists@andyfurniss.entadsl.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 09:40:28 +0000
Subject: Re: [LARTC] PRIO and TBF is much better than HTB??
Message-Id: <46443A0C.8050201@andyfurniss.entadsl.com>
List-Id: <lartc.vger.kernel.org>
References: <001401c79315$b1732c60$14598520$@de>
In-Reply-To: <001401c79315$b1732c60$14598520$@de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org

Simo wrote:

> #define UPLOAD 1000kbps

I've never used tcns/sim if that's what this is kbps means k bytes to=20
"normal" tc.


>               $low =3D class{ tbf (rate 300kbps, burst 1510B, mtu 1510B, =
limit
> 3000B); }

limit 3000B - not even enough for two packets (1500 mtu =3D 1514 to tc on=20
eth), would hurt performance on a real wan.

> every 0.0008s send TCP_PCK($tcp_dport") 0 x 60
>=20
> /* 800kbit/s  */

testing with a stream is not very representative of real tcp.


> the delay by the combination of PRIO and TBF is much better than by the H=
TB.
> (is it possible that pakets maybe dropped by the combination of PRIO and
> TBF, that=B4s why the latency is so good???)

Yes unless you add leafs with limit htb uses qlen of nic, default 1000p

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