Re: [LARTC] filters not doing anything?

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

> > But where is your catch all rule to put the packets in the 2:4 band?
>
> Catchall rule? I only want fwmarked traffic in 2:4, and it gets in
> there through 40:1 and 40:2.
Ok.

> > And you never put packets in the 2:2 band.
> Yeah, that's yet to be filled, I was going to select traffic for that
> once I had it up and running. But I don't yes, because I can't even
> get the simple test case working properly, let alone this :-(
Ok.

> > An other question, why do you added that 4 bands prio?  You can do the
> > same only with the htb qdisc.
>
> How? I want the first band to have priority, always. I could make its
> rate equal to its ceil, but that'd mean the other classes in the HTB
> would have to have rate 0, and that'd mean the bandwidth that gets
> left after the first band was depleted would get distributed evenly,
> and I don't want that.
It depends on what you want to achieve.  You create a very complicated setup 
with 3 qdiscs.  If you only want speed up ACK, and other traffic, you can do 
this with 1 htb qdisc only.  More qdiscs, means more queues so higher 
latency, higher CPU usage.
It also depends on how mach traffic you put in the bands.  If you only want to 
speed up ACK, you can also use a htb class with a higher priority.

So it just depends on what you want to do.  Maybe there is a cleaner solution.

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/