From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Devera Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 10:09:24 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Has anybody used HTB? Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: lartc@vger.kernel.org you can use one htb here like: root (your full link, rate=CEil%6k) \ ssh+icmp leaf (prio=3D0 ratePk ceil%6k) http leaf (prio=3D1 rate=100k ceil%6k) other leaf (prio=3D2 rate=100k 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: >=20 > >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=20 > 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=20 > I thought htb would do nice here to. In my view (everybody, please=20 > 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=20 > start to ping so the PRIO's band 0 is always full and no other traffic=20 > works... >=20 > >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. :) >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/