[LARTC] Re: LARTC digest, Vol 1 #907 - 2 msgs

[LARTC] Re: LARTC digest, Vol 1 #907 - 2 msgs

[Brian Capouch]

> From: Stef Coene <stef.coene@docum.org>
> ;
> 
>>does it matter that the rate is being reported differently by each
>>invocation of tc?
> 
> I don't know exactly how the rate is calculated, but I don't think you sh> ould 
> not trust it.
> 
> 
>>The upload speed of the first runs 252, 258, 254, etc.; on the second
>>86, 150, 92, 78, etc.
> 
> Is this reported by tc or by iperf ??
> 

By iperf.

One little detail, and I guess this is the explaining fact but it's 
interesting to think about why: all the machines reported on here are 
using wireless access.  The two which are working well have no jitter or 
packet loss, but the two that are acting up both have a fair amount of 
jitter, and about 6-8% packet loss because of their being marginal links.

I'm assuming that is the explanation (I hadn't thoroughly tested the 
link quality before sending that other mail) but I wonder why.  They 
show average throughput well above the rate limits I set when they are 
operating without HTB.

Thanks.

B.


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

Re: [LARTC] Re: LARTC digest, Vol 1 #907 - 2 msgs

[Stef Coene]

On Thursday 05 December 2002 07:40, Brian Capouch wrote:
> > From: Stef Coene <stef.coene@docum.org>
> > ;
> >
> >>does it matter that the rate is being reported differently by each
> >>invocation of tc?
> >
> > I don't know exactly how the rate is calculated, but I don't think you
> > sh= ould=20
> > not trust it.
> >
> >>The upload speed of the first runs 252, 258, 254, etc.; on the second
> >>86, 150, 92, 78, etc.
> >
> > Is this reported by tc or by iperf ??
>
> By iperf.
>
> One little detail, and I guess this is the explaining fact but it's
> interesting to think about why: all the machines reported on here are
> using wireless access.  The two which are working well have no jitter or
> packet loss, but the two that are acting up both have a fair amount of
> jitter, and about 6-8% packet loss because of their being marginal links.
>
> I'm assuming that is the explanation (I hadn't thoroughly tested the
> link quality before sending that other mail) but I wonder why.  They
> show average throughput well above the rate limits I set when they are
> operating without HTB.
Maybe they are generating more bursts and it's possible that your htb setup 
allows bursts.  So at the long-term, they can get a higher rate.
Otherwise, I don't know.

Stef

-- 

stef.coene@docum.org
 "Using Linux as bandwidth manager"
     http://www.docum.org/
     #lartc @ irc.oftc.net


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