[LARTC] Re: priomap table

[LARTC] Re: priomap table

[bert hubert]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 01:20:41PM +0200, Vik Heyndrickx wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> In the current LARTC Howto, at 9.2.1.1. "Parameters & usage", there is the
> following table
> 
> <txttable>
> TOS     Bits  Means                    Linux Priority    Band
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 0x0     0     Normal Service           0 Best Effort     1
> 0x2     1     Minimize Monetary Cost   1 Filler          2
> 0x4     2     Maximize Reliability     0 Best Effort     1
> 0x6     3     mmc+mr                   0 Best Effort     1
> 0x8     4     Maximize Throughput      2 Bulk            2
> 0xa     5     mmc+mt                   2 Bulk            2
> 0xc     6     mr+mt                    2 Bulk            2
> 0xe     7     mmc+mr+mt                2 Bulk            2
> 0x10    8     Minimize Delay           6 Interactive     0
> 0x12    9     mmc+md                   6 Interactive     0
> 0x14    10    mr+md                    6 Interactive     0
> 0x16    11    mmc+mr+md                6 Interactive     0
> 0x18    12    mt+md                    4 Int. Bulk       1
> 0x1a    13    mmc+mt+md                4 Int. Bulk       1
> 0x1c    14    mr+mt+md                 4 Int. Bulk       1
> 0x1e    15    mmc+mr+mt+md             4 Int. Bulk       1
> </txttable>
> 
> And then
> <quote>
> The last column shows the result of the default priomap.
> On the commandline, the default priomap looks like this:
> 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
> </quote>
> 
> Now, why are this "band column" and priomap list different? Is there a
> relationship between them, or is it just a mistake, or did I miss something
> (also a good possibility)?

There is an additional level of indirection in there I think. I really
really went over this with a fine comb when I wrote it. Perhaps something
changed? Would the commandline default priomap make sense?

Regards,

bert
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> Vik
> 

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com          Versatile DNS Software & Services
http://www.tk                              the dot in .tk
http://lartc.org           Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

RE: [LARTC] Re: priomap table

[Vik Heyndrickx]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lartc-admin@mailman.ds9a.nl [mailto:lartc-admin@mailman.ds9a.nl]On
> Behalf Of bert hubert
> Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 6:13 PM
> To: Vik Heyndrickx
> Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
> Subject: [LARTC] Re: priomap table
>
> > Now, why are this "band column" and priomap list different? Is there a
> > relationship between them, or is it just a mistake, or did I
> miss something
> > (also a good possibility)?
>
> There is an additional level of indirection in there I think. I really
> really went over this with a fine comb when I wrote it. Perhaps something
> changed? Would the commandline default priomap make sense?

The default priomap doesn't make sense if put as-is in the last column.
Anyway, the default priomap with a current kernel is still the same as in
the documentation and it appears that "Minimize Delay" pings are indeed put
into prio/pfifo_fast band 0, just like the table suggested. The extra layer
of indirection is the fourth column of the table, which originates from I
don't know where.

I was experimenting with a four band prio qdisc. Now that I understand this,
I think I've got to go back to the drawing board. I wondered why my
"Minimize Delay" pings were classified into the second band qdisc.

--
Vik

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