[LARTC] wondershaper HTB thoughts

[LARTC] wondershaper HTB thoughts

[Adrian Bridgett]

Hi, 

I've just started using wondershaper (HTB version) and I had a few thoughts
(probably mostly as I'm new to this):

a) there is a filter to add stuff into the 1:20 class, however that's the
default so surely this is pointless.

b) there is no ceil specified for the queues. According to the HTB
documentation, this will prevent the queues sharing bandwidth. Wouldn't
adding "ceil ${UPLINK}kbit" be a good idea?

c) an ingress filter is setup to drop packets arriving faster than "a bit
less than the max speed" in order to prevent large queues building up at the
ISP.  I don't see how this helps at all - surely this only slows traffic -
why would the queues get smaller?  Our ISP would (I'd have thought) buffer a
fixed amount - which will now take longer to get through.

Surely what we might want to do is to put an ingress limit on "bulk"
traffic. i.e. if our inbound is 30kbps max, have a root limit of 40kbps
(which we won't ever reach), then give bulk traffic a rate of 25kbps with a
ceil of 30kbps.

BTW I've just rolled iproute packages for debian with htb3.6 if anyone is
interested (just email me privately).

Adrian

Email: adrian.bridgett@iname.com
Windows NT - Unix in beta-testing. GPG/PGP keys available on public key servers
Debian GNU/Linux  -*-  By professionals for professionals  -*-  www.debian.org
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper HTB thoughts

[Stef Coene]

On Thursday 20 June 2002 23:54, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just started using wondershaper (HTB version) and I had a few thoughts
> (probably mostly as I'm new to this):
>
> a) there is a filter to add stuff into the 1:20 class, however that's the
> default so surely this is pointless.
CBQ has no default class, so when the wondershaper was converted from cbq to 
htb, the filter was not removed.  It's indeed not needed.

> b) there is no ceil specified for the queues. According to the HTB
> documentation, this will prevent the queues sharing bandwidth. Wouldn't
> adding "ceil ${UPLINK}kbit" be a good idea?
Yes.
And I have a  better idea.  Write a new version of the wondershaper and mail 
it to Bert Hubert.  He will be pleased to receive an other patch :)

The wondershaper is more to taste the power of shaping.  If you are able to 
fix all the bugs, you are also able to create your own script and do much 
better :).   It's more a test for the newbies :)


Stef

-- 

stef.coene@docum.org
 "Using Linux as bandwidth manager"
     http://www.docum.org/
     #lartc @ irc.openprojects.net
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/