* Re: [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question
2001-06-01 14:25 [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question Andy Pyles
@ 2001-06-01 16:30 ` Wingtung.Leung
2001-06-01 16:55 ` Rodrigo Goya
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Wingtung.Leung @ 2001-06-01 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Andy Pyles wrote:
> I'm trying to setup a linux box as follows:
>
>
>
> <---- 170kbs 170kbs ------------>
> if Dest. = 10.10.20.97 if Dest. = 10.10.30.3
> (classid\x170) (classid\x171)
>
> |------| |------
> | eth0 | |eth1 |
> | |-----| |
> -------- -------
> <------30kbs 30kbs --------------->
> if Dest. = 10.10.20.95 if Dest. = 10.10.30.2
> (classid0) (classid1)
>
> Brief synopsis:
>
> basically what I have outlined above works fine. The problem that I'm
> having is
> when I'm NOT experiencing any traffic on #170, then #30 is NOT able to
> inherit any excess bandwidth.
>
> Here is what I have below:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1:0 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit avpkt 1000
> cell 8
> tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit rate
> 200Kbit weight 20Kbit prio 8 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
>
> tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 1:0 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit avpkt 1000
> cell 8
> tc class add dev eth1 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit rate
> 200Kbit weight 20Kbit prio 8 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
>
> tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:170 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit
> rate 170Kbit weight 17Kbit prio 5 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt
> 1000
> tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:170 tbf rate 170Kbit buffer 10Kb/8 limit
> 15Kb mtu 1500
> tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 100 u32 match ip dst
> 10.10.20.97 flowid 1:170
>
> tc class add dev eth1 parent 1:1 classid 1:171 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit
> rate 170Kbit weight 17Kbit prio 5 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt
> 1000
> tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 1:171 tbf rate 170Kbit buffer 10Kb/8 limit
> 15Kb mtu 1500
> tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 100 u32 match ip dst
> 10.10.30.3 flowid 1:171
>
> tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:170 classid 1:30 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit
> rate 30Kbit weight 3Kbit prio 6 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
Shouldn't the parent class be 1:1 instead of 1:170 ??
I believe in the current scheme, 1:170 is child from 1:1 and 1:30 a child
from 1:170. I think you want both 1:170 as 1:30 to be children from 1:1.
> tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:30 tbf rate 30Kbit buffer 10Kb/8 limit
> 15Kb mtu 1500
> tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 100 u32 match ip dst
> 10.10.20.95 flowid 1:30
>
> tc class add dev eth1 parent 1:171 classid 1:31 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit
> rate 30Kbit weight 3Kbit prio 6 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
> tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 1:31 tbf rate 30Kbit buffer 10Kb/8 limit
> 15Kb mtu 1500
> tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 100 u32 match ip dst
> 10.10.30.2 flowid 1:31
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question
2001-06-01 14:25 [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question Andy Pyles
2001-06-01 16:30 ` Wingtung.Leung
@ 2001-06-01 16:55 ` Rodrigo Goya
2001-06-01 19:14 ` Andy Pyles
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rodrigo Goya @ 2001-06-01 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
Hi,
> > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:170 classid 1:30 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit
> > rate 30Kbit weight 3Kbit prio 6 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
>
> Shouldn't the parent class be 1:1 instead of 1:170 ??
>
> I believe in the current scheme, 1:170 is child from 1:1 and 1:30 a child
> from 1:170. I think you want both 1:170 as 1:30 to be children from 1:1.
>
I agree with this.
Also, shouldn't root qdisc 1:0 have full interface bandwidth? and then root
class 1:1 have "bandwidth $TOTAL rate 200kbit bounded" ?
Something else, isn't it necesary to have a qdisc for each interface? Right now
it's 1:0 for eth0 and 1:0 for eth1, I don't know if this works, I've always
done it using (for example) 1:0 for eth0 and 2:0 for eth1.
If I'm off track please tell me =)
Cheers,
Rodrigo
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* RE: [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question
2001-06-01 14:25 [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question Andy Pyles
2001-06-01 16:30 ` Wingtung.Leung
2001-06-01 16:55 ` Rodrigo Goya
@ 2001-06-01 19:14 ` Andy Pyles
2001-06-07 7:11 ` Stef Coene
2001-06-07 7:11 ` Stef Coene
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andy Pyles @ 2001-06-01 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodrigo Goya [mailto:rgoya@linuxcenter.com.mx]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 9:55 AM
> To: Linux Advanced Router & Traffic Control
> Subject: Re: [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question
>
>
> Hi,
>
> > > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:170 classid 1:30 cbq
> bandwidth 200Kbit
> > > rate 30Kbit weight 3Kbit prio 6 allot 1514 cell 8
> maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
> >
> > Shouldn't the parent class be 1:1 instead of 1:170 ??
> >
> > I believe in the current scheme, 1:170 is child from 1:1
> and 1:30 a child
> > from 1:170. I think you want both 1:170 as 1:30 to be
> children from 1:1.
> >
>
> I agree with this.
>
> Also, shouldn't root qdisc 1:0 have full interface bandwidth?
> and then root
> class 1:1 have "bandwidth $TOTAL rate 200kbit bounded" ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
< I'm throwing in the diagram again in for clarity >
<---- 170kbs 170kbs ------------>
if Dest. = 10.10.20.97 if Dest. = 10.10.30.3
(classid=170) (classid=171)
|------| |------
| eth0 | |eth1 |
| |-----| |
-------- -------
<------30kbs 30kbs --------------->
if Dest. = 10.10.20.95 if Dest. = 10.10.30.2
(classid=30) (classid=31)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ok.. I guess I could implement this. However, as it is now, I am
effectively keeping the
maximum bandwidth under 200kbs. So, I don't see a reason for it. Is
there one?
Let me clarify, I have been able to determine, through testing, that
these seperate classes are
indeed working. In other words, I am not able to exceed the bandwidth
limitations set in their seperate classes.
I.e. no more than 170kbs with dest ip= 10.10.20.97 AND no more than
30kbs if dest. ip = 10.10.20.95.
Now, the only problem I'm having is having is to allow class 30 to
borrow from it's parent class.
>
> Something else, isn't it necesary to have a qdisc for each
> interface? Right now
> it's 1:0 for eth0 and 1:0 for eth1, I don't know if this
> works, I've always
> done it using (for example) 1:0 for eth0 and 2:0 for eth1.
>
> If I'm off track please tell me =)
Ok. This definetly makes sense. I set this up. so that there is a new
qdisc classifier for each respective device
1:0 for eth0
2.0 for eth1
Unfortunately, I'm still back to square one. I Still can't seem to share
between classes.
Heres the latest revised output:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1:0 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit avpkt 1000
cell 8
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit rate
200Kbit weight 20Kbit prio 8 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 2:0 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit avpkt 1000
cell 8
tc class add dev eth1 parent 2:0 classid 2:1 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit rate
200Kbit weight 20Kbit prio 8 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:170 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit
rate 170Kbit weight 17Kbit prio 5 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt
1000
tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:170 tbf rate 170Kbit buffer 10Kb/8 limit
15Kb mtu 1500
tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 100 u32 match ip dst
10.10.20.97 flowid 1:170
tc class add dev eth1 parent 2:1 classid 2:171 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit
rate 170Kbit weight 17Kbit prio 5 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt
1000
tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 2:171 tbf rate 170Kbit buffer 10Kb/8 limit
15Kb mtu 1500
tc filter add dev eth1 parent 2:0 protocol ip prio 100 u32 match ip dst
10.10.30.3 flowid 2:171
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:30 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit rate
30Kbit weight 3Kbit prio 5 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:30 tbf rate 30Kbit buffer 10Kb/8 limit
15Kb mtu 1500
tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 100 u32 match ip dst
10.10.20.95 flowid 1:30
tc class add dev eth1 parent 2:1 classid 2:31 cbq bandwidth 200Kbit rate
30Kbit weight 3Kbit prio 5 allot 1514 cell 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 2:31 tbf rate 30Kbit buffer 10Kb/8 limit
15Kb mtu 1500
tc filter add dev eth1 parent 2:0 protocol ip prio 100 u32 match ip dst
10.10.30.2 flowid 2:31
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question
2001-06-01 14:25 [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question Andy Pyles
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2001-06-01 19:14 ` Andy Pyles
@ 2001-06-07 7:11 ` Stef Coene
2001-06-07 7:11 ` Stef Coene
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stef Coene @ 2001-06-07 7:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
Andy Pyles wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rodrigo Goya [mailto:rgoya@linuxcenter.com.mx]
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 9:55 AM
> > To: Linux Advanced Router & Traffic Control
> > Subject: Re: [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:170 classid 1:30 cbq
> > bandwidth 200Kbit
> > > > rate 30Kbit weight 3Kbit prio 6 allot 1514 cell 8
> > maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
> > >
> > > Shouldn't the parent class be 1:1 instead of 1:170 ??
> > >
> > > I believe in the current scheme, 1:170 is child from 1:1
> > and 1:30 a child
> > > from 1:170. I think you want both 1:170 as 1:30 to be
> > children from 1:1.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with this.
> >
> > Also, shouldn't root qdisc 1:0 have full interface bandwidth?
> > and then root
> > class 1:1 have "bandwidth $TOTAL rate 200kbit bounded" ?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> < I'm throwing in the diagram again in for clarity >
>
> <---- 170kbs 170kbs ------------>
> if Dest. = 10.10.20.97 if Dest. = 10.10.30.3
> (classid\x170) (classid\x171)
>
> |------| |------
> | eth0 | |eth1 |
> | |-----| |
> -------- -------
> <------30kbs 30kbs --------------->
> if Dest. = 10.10.20.95 if Dest. = 10.10.30.2
> (classid0) (classid1)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Ok.. I guess I could implement this. However, as it is now, I am
> effectively keeping the
> maximum bandwidth under 200kbs. So, I don't see a reason for it. Is
> there one?
>
> Let me clarify, I have been able to determine, through testing, that
> these seperate classes are
> indeed working. In other words, I am not able to exceed the bandwidth
> limitations set in their seperate classes.
> I.e. no more than 170kbs with dest ip= 10.10.20.97 AND no more than
> 30kbs if dest. ip = 10.10.20.95.
>
> Now, the only problem I'm having is having is to allow class 30 to
> borrow from it's parent class.
If you want to do this, follow the following scheme :
CBQ root qdisc 10: with BW = link BW (10Mbit)
CBQ BOUNDED class 10:1, parent 10: with BW = link BW and rate = 200
kbps
CBQ qdisc 20: on class 10:1 with BW = 200kbps
CBQ Class 20:170 with BW 200kbps and rate 170kbps, prio 3, no weight
CBQ Class 20:30 with BW 200kbps and rate 30kbps, prio 3, no weight
Now class 20:170 and 20:30 will share the bandwidth and class 20:170
will get 170/200*100% of available bandwidth (200kbps).
There is only one problem. The bounded parameter on the class 10:1 will
bound the class (and thus qdisc 20:0) in theory to 200 kbps BUT CBQ is
very inaccurate. It will bound the traffic to 140kbps in stead of
200kbps. I'm still testing it, but you can find the first results on
http://users.belgacom.net/staf/qos/tests/cbq/bounded-accuracy.html. So
if you try this, and the BW is 140kbps, it's working, don't blame me,
it's CBQ that's not accurate.
> > Something else, isn't it necesary to have a qdisc for each
> > interface? Right now
> > it's 1:0 for eth0 and 1:0 for eth1, I don't know if this
> > works, I've always
> > done it using (for example) 1:0 for eth0 and 2:0 for eth1.
You may use the same number since the device is different
--
Stef
More QOS info : http://users.belgacom.net/staf/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question
2001-06-01 14:25 [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question Andy Pyles
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2001-06-07 7:11 ` Stef Coene
@ 2001-06-07 7:11 ` Stef Coene
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stef Coene @ 2001-06-07 7:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
Andy Pyles wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rodrigo Goya [mailto:rgoya@linuxcenter.com.mx]
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 9:55 AM
> > To: Linux Advanced Router & Traffic Control
> > Subject: Re: [LARTC] qdisc unbounding question
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:170 classid 1:30 cbq
> > bandwidth 200Kbit
> > > > rate 30Kbit weight 3Kbit prio 6 allot 1514 cell 8
> > maxburst 20 avpkt 1000
> > >
> > > Shouldn't the parent class be 1:1 instead of 1:170 ??
> > >
> > > I believe in the current scheme, 1:170 is child from 1:1
> > and 1:30 a child
> > > from 1:170. I think you want both 1:170 as 1:30 to be
> > children from 1:1.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with this.
> >
> > Also, shouldn't root qdisc 1:0 have full interface bandwidth?
> > and then root
> > class 1:1 have "bandwidth $TOTAL rate 200kbit bounded" ?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> < I'm throwing in the diagram again in for clarity >
>
> <---- 170kbs 170kbs ------------>
> if Dest. = 10.10.20.97 if Dest. = 10.10.30.3
> (classid\x170) (classid\x171)
>
> |------| |------
> | eth0 | |eth1 |
> | |-----| |
> -------- -------
> <------30kbs 30kbs --------------->
> if Dest. = 10.10.20.95 if Dest. = 10.10.30.2
> (classid0) (classid1)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Ok.. I guess I could implement this. However, as it is now, I am
> effectively keeping the
> maximum bandwidth under 200kbs. So, I don't see a reason for it. Is
> there one?
>
> Let me clarify, I have been able to determine, through testing, that
> these seperate classes are
> indeed working. In other words, I am not able to exceed the bandwidth
> limitations set in their seperate classes.
> I.e. no more than 170kbs with dest ip= 10.10.20.97 AND no more than
> 30kbs if dest. ip = 10.10.20.95.
>
> Now, the only problem I'm having is having is to allow class 30 to
> borrow from it's parent class.
If you want to do this, follow the following scheme :
CBQ root qdisc 10: with BW = link BW (10Mbit)
CBQ BOUNDED class 10:1, parent 10: with BW = link BW and rate = 200
kbps
CBQ qdisc 20: on class 10:1 with BW = 200kbps
CBQ Class 20:170 with BW 200kbps and rate 170kbps, prio 3, no weight
CBQ Class 20:30 with BW 200kbps and rate 30kbps, prio 3, no weight
Now class 20:170 and 20:30 will share the bandwidth and class 20:170
will get 170/200*100% of available bandwidth (200kbps).
There is only one problem. The bounded parameter on the class 10:1 will
bound the class (and thus qdisc 20:0) in theory to 200 kbps BUT CBQ is
very inaccurate. It will bound the traffic to 140kbps in stead of
200kbps. I'm still testing it, but you can find the first results on
http://users.belgacom.net/staf/qos/tests/cbq/bounded-accuracy.html. So
if you try this, and the BW is 140kbps, it's working, don't blame me,
it's CBQ that's not accurate.
> > Something else, isn't it necesary to have a qdisc for each
> > interface? Right now
> > it's 1:0 for eth0 and 1:0 for eth1, I don't know if this
> > works, I've always
> > done it using (for example) 1:0 for eth0 and 2:0 for eth1.
You may use the same number since the device is different
--
Stef
More QOS info : http://users.belgacom.net/staf/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread