From: "Martin A. Brown" <mabrown-lartc@securepipe.com>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: no bug in tcng; tc kbit v. tcng kbps [LARTC] was tcng error
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:58:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-106996355118825@msgid-missing> (raw)
Hello Charles,
: after slicing and dicing, i found that i had cut and pasted bad syntax,
: so i have solved the problem posted in my first message.
Where did you find the original (I'm hoping it's not one of mine). If so,
let me know, and I'll fix it.
[ example snipped ]
: notice that the UPLINK of 512 kbps (arguably 524288 bps) has been
: incorrectly calculated as 64000 bps
You have not actually found a bug, but rather a historical strangeness
about the Linux traffic control system. For reasons of which I'm
ignorant, the syntax for the "tc" command uses bps for bytes/second. So,
64000 bytes/second is actually 512 kilobits/second ("512 kbps" in common
usage), but is 512 kbit to the "tc" tool. Here's a brief chart:
tc syntax tcng syntax
+----------------+----------------+
bytes/second | bps | Bps |
bits/second | bit | bps |
kilobytes/second | kbps | kBps |
kilobits/second | kbit | kbps |
+----------------+----------------+
Note that the tcng syntax is exactly the same sort of syntax we use in
general when discussing speed of WAN links. "It's a 512 kbps line" means
it's 512 kilobits per second, but this would be 64000 bytes per second if
we were writing a "tc" command line.
[ another example snipped ]
I expect that you'll understand exactly what was happening in your second
example now that you are looking at this chart.
: have i missed something, or indeed there is a problem??
I'm guessing that you just missed this oddity of command line tc behaviour
but that the tcng syntax is doing exactly what you desire.
Best of luck,
-Martin
--
Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe, Inc. --- mabrown@securepipe.com
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
next reply other threads:[~2003-11-27 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-27 19:58 Martin A. Brown [this message]
2003-11-28 7:43 ` no bug in tcng; tc kbit v. tcng kbps [LARTC] was tcng error lartc
2003-12-01 6:01 ` Martin A. Brown
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-106996355118825@msgid-missing \
--to=mabrown-lartc@securepipe.com \
--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.