From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mario Giammarco Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:34:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] priority bands don't reduce interactive latency? Message-Id: 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 Il sab, 2002-02-16 alle 20:26, Martin Devera ha scritto: > Mario, > First I thank you all for your precious support! In diffserv mailing list there is less help! > I looked at the conf. First don't use prio 4 - it is the same as > prio 3 (htb does prios 0..3). Ok I have corrected it. > How do you measure the latency ? Ping ? How big packet, which ip > is pinged ? You use prio and other schedulers on ppp ... Goes the > ping packet through them ? Sure testing is difficult. Please note that I have tried different configurations and not only the one I posted: sfq vs red, htb vs prio etc. etc. etc. > Did you tested for sure that packets are enqueued into right > class (tc -s class show dev eth0) ? > Unfortunately tc command shows to me that packets are in right class. > If it could be htb problem I'm ready to look at it (although I've > been solving almost ten reports like this and only first two were > really htb bugs - other was mainly bad setup, bad expectations or > bad measuring). > I don't want to be alibistic only I'm short of time as I work in new > htb algorithm ;) > No, I do not want to accuse you of a bug. I have asked only because I do not want to spend a month on various tests and THEN discover that there is a KNOWN bug in htb. I rememeber when I had to implement diffserv with cbq for my teacher. I had to cheat a lot because cqb parameters do not do what they mean. If you say htb is stable I am happy. Please continue developing new algorithms ;-) _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/lartc/