Re: [LARTC] [tcng] correct config?

[Stef Coene <stef.coene@docum.org>]

On Monday 22 July 2002 20:05, raptor@unacs.bg wrote:
> Below is my tests and I have some questions regarding them :
> first it seems that classification doesnt happen at all ?! and it is clear
> from the u32 filters 'cause they point to classes 1:1 and 1:2 which doesnt
> exist at all ? Also I can't figure out which filter got used u32 or
> tc_index but 'cause tcism_plot generates only enqueed packed and no
> dequee-packets. They have same priority but u32 is attached at root so they
> should be used, right ?
>
> Ok I will describe the scenario I want to achieve if u can give me simple
> exmples :
>
> On the root I want to create one 256KB/s channel then in this channel I
> want to create two channels which will be separated on two one 60% the
> other 40% (both can borrow bandwith from each other but the 60%-channel has
> to be more privileged, higher priority)
What do you exacly mean with "more privileged, higher priority" ??

> Then in those two channels I want have more small channels say 30 in each
> of them... (cbq and htb if posiible :") 'm I nasty !)
No problem with cbq nor with htb.

> Next question : Say I have to handle other traffic not only Internet, then
> I should make sibling channels to my Internet one to handle this, right ?
Mhh.  I don't understand your point.

> One final question : If u have say 1Mbps Internet connection to the outside
> world what channel u create below-the-root (which is 100Mbps -ethernet) 
> for handling your internet traffic -- exact 1Mbps OR something like 1.2Mbps
> so that u can be sure that if link is used to 100% u dont end up using
> something like 98% of the link OR some other way ?
Other way.  If you create a 1.2 Mbps class, you will send more data then the 
internet connecion can handle.  So the buffers in the internet modem (most 
high-bandwidth modems has big buffers to get a higher throuput) will get 
filled.
Solution: make sure the buffers are never filled so send less bandwidth then 
you actualy have.  You loose some bandwidth, but you win the ability to 
control that bandwidth.

There is also something wrong with the output generated by tcng.  But I dived 
not deep enough in the tcng docs to know what's going wrong.

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/