Re: [LARTC] Has anybody used HTB?

[Martin Devera <devik@cdi.cz>]

you can use one htb here like:

root (your full link, rateÎil%6k)
\
 ssh+icmp leaf (prio=0 ratePk ceil%6k)
 http leaf (prio=1 rate\x100k ceil%6k)
 other leaf (prio=2 rate\x100k ceil%6k)

This is only example - I don't remember correct
numbers you want. In above ssh+icmp will go always
first as long as they are under 50k, then http
is priorized as long as it is in 100k limit ....

devik

On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, eth wrote:

> Martin Devera wrote:
> 
> >Your setup doesn't make much sense. Two htbs can be done
> >but there is no benefit.
> >
> Well... what I'm trying to do is to get a 50Kbytes/s slice in which ICMP 
> and ssh should work perceptible faster than other and, below, http 
> should work perceptible faster than the rest. I try to put the first htb 
> for the 50K overall limit and then make PRIO as qdisc for the first htb. 
> Each of the bands from this PRIO should have some form of limitting and 
> I thought htb would do nice here to. In my view (everybody, please 
> correct me if I'm wrong...) there should be some form of upper limit for 
> the bands of PRIO so I can avoid the sittuation where e.g. 15 machines 
> start to ping so the PRIO's band 0 is always full and no other traffic 
> works...
> 
> >tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 100:2 handle 102:1 is wrong
> >because each qdisc handle takes form X:0 not X:1 ...
> >devik
> >
> Thanks, I'll try it. :)
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/