From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andy Furniss <andyqos@ukfsn.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:45:54 +0000
Subject: Re: Ingress filter is overly aggressive
Message-Id: <51249B52.1040100@ukfsn.org>
List-Id: <lartc.vger.kernel.org>
References: <000e01ce0e5f$674748d0$35d5da70$@JAMMConsulting.com>
In-Reply-To: <000e01ce0e5f$674748d0$35d5da70$@JAMMConsulting.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org

Neil Aggarwal wrote:
> Andy:
>
>> It seems the problem is that you don't specify mtu adding
>> mtu 3100 fixed for me.
>
> The MTU setting is extremely strange.
>
> When I left it at the default value, the ingress was limited to a sustained
> rate of about 100 kbit/sec.
>
> When I set the MTU to 3100 as you suggested, the ingress had a sustained
> rate about 6 mbit/sec which is better but still not the target I wanted.
>
> When I set the MTU to 5k, the ingress has a sustained rate about 2.6
> mbit/sec
> which I find counter-intuitive since it does not seem to be a linear
> relationship.
>
> Does anyone have any insights into this?

http://ace-host.stuart.id.au/russell/files/tc/doc/

There is some info in the police.txt there, it's old and I don't know 
how valid it is.

I've never used/tested policers with anything but the simplest of params.

I've also never tested any tc on virtual setups.