From: Stef Coene <stef.coene@docum.org>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Excess BW again
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:29:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-106632737916600@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-lartc-106621592102405@msgid-missing>
On Wednesday 15 October 2003 12:42, Tom Olexa wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I've already posted st similar, but anyway...
> can anyone tell me, why the following setup
>
> tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb r2q 5
>
> tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 512kbit ceil
> 512kbit tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb rate
> 64kbit ceil 512kbit tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:11
> htb rate 256kbit ceil 512kbit
>
> tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 u32 \
> match ip dst 195.28.103.7 flowid 1:10
> tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 u32 \
> match ip dst 195.28.103.5 flowid 1:11
>
> doesn't distribute the excess bw in proportion of allocated bw?
>
> Ratio I expect is 64/256, but I get some 1/2.1 or similar. This
> varies according to r2q, but anyway it never gets close to 1/4.
>
> kernel 2.4.21, htb 3.12, but also tested on 2.4.18, htb 3.6 with
> similar results...
>
> Can anyone try this setup?
I tried it myself and this is the result (in bytes and the output is not like
it should be):
2.884 KB/s 4.258 KB/s T 7.143 KB/s G 75.41 KB/s 40.38% 40.38%
18.66 KB/s 41.64 KB/s T 60.31 KB/s G 67.82 KB/s 30.95% 36.17%
21.54 KB/s 43.08 KB/s T 64.62 KB/s G 66.75 KB/s 33.33% 35.25%
22.97 KB/s 45.95 KB/s T 68.92 KB/s G 67.30 KB/s 33.33% 34.76%
21.54 KB/s 44.52 KB/s T 66.06 KB/s G 67.05 KB/s 32.61% 34.33%
21.54 KB/s 43.08 KB/s T 64.62 KB/s G 66.64 KB/s 33.33% 34.17%
21.54 KB/s 44.51 KB/s T 66.06 KB/s G 66.56 KB/s 32.61% 33.95%
21.53 KB/s 43.07 KB/s T 64.61 KB/s G 66.32 KB/s 33.33% 33.88%
24.41 KB/s 43.07 KB/s T 67.48 KB/s G 66.45 KB/s 36.17% 34.13%
17.23 KB/s 44.53 KB/s T 61.76 KB/s G 65.98 KB/s 27.91% 33.55%
22.97 KB/s 41.64 KB/s T 64.62 KB/s G 65.85 KB/s 35.56% 33.73%
21.54 KB/s 44.51 KB/s T 66.06 KB/s G 65.87 KB/s 32.61% 33.64%
24.41 KB/s 44.51 KB/s T 68.93 KB/s G 66.11 KB/s 35.42% 33.78%
17.23 KB/s 41.64 KB/s T 58.87 KB/s G 65.59 KB/s 29.27% 33.49%
22.97 KB/s 44.52 KB/s T 67.50 KB/s G 65.72 KB/s 34.04% 33.53%
20.09 KB/s 43.06 KB/s T 63.16 KB/s G 65.56 KB/s 31.82% 33.42%
24.42 KB/s 44.54 KB/s T 68.96 KB/s G 65.76 KB/s 35.42% 33.55%
18.66 KB/s 43.08 KB/s T 61.74 KB/s G 65.53 KB/s 30.23% 33.37%
21.50 KB/s 41.58 KB/s T 63.09 KB/s G 65.40 KB/s 34.09% 33.41%
21.57 KB/s 44.58 KB/s T 66.16 KB/s G 65.44 KB/s 32.61% 33.37%
12.92 KB/s 43.08 KB/s T 56.00 KB/s G 64.99 KB/s 23.08% 32.95%
15.79 KB/s 43.07 KB/s T 58.87 KB/s G 64.71 KB/s 26.83% 32.69%
18.67 KB/s 45.95 KB/s T 64.62 KB/s G 64.71 KB/s 28.89% 32.53%
(10 rate) (11 rate) (10 + 11) (average 10+11) (10/11) (average 10/11)
So the ratio is 32.53%.
Ideally, this should be 64/256 = 25%
Not that bad.
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/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-10-16 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-10-15 10:42 [LARTC] Excess BW again Tom Olexa
2003-10-16 17:29 ` Stef Coene [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=marc-lartc-106632737916600@msgid-missing \
--to=stef.coene@docum.org \
--cc=lartc@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.