From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stef Coene Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:03:25 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Re: LARTC digest, Vol 1 #907 - 2 msgs 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 On Thursday 05 December 2002 07:40, Brian Capouch wrote: > > From: Stef Coene > > ; > > > >>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/