From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: eth Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 12:54:41 +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="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Martin Devera wrote:

I've tc-ed ICMP to be 1:110, ssh to be 1:120 and the rest 1:130. Guess 
what? Look at the following example, you can notice that although ICMP 
should be the highest prio, sometimes it's not. Maybe I've made, again, 
some mistakes or maybe prio from HTB needs more tuning... :)


It is possible. On what hw you did the test ? 10Mbit eth ? If yes then
there is possible to have approx 2ms jitter in delay because you can
go in when large FTP packet is already in transit.

You guessed right, I was on 10Mbit ethernet. Then again, how did PRIO managed to make it happen?

Wait a second. Can't we... I mean you... make a decision to stop sending the pending packet if something more important has just arrived? I guess not... giving a seconf thought it's like once the driver has "spited" the bytes in the NIC's hardware buffer they're gone for good... unless there is a standard in the kernel to say "Stop now nomatter what".

If things are like you say the smaller the MTU the smaller the effect, right?

You can try to do hierarchy of htb/prio/htb but from my side of view
I'd rather repair htb's priorization if there is bug ;)

Well... it'll be nice to have an htb option with 0 to 9 with 0 being the most draconian in terms of prio and lousy in terms of bucketing and 9 the oposite. But again I'm not in your's shoes... ;-)

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