Re: [Bulk] Re: [LARTC] has anyone tried adsl-optmizer kernel patches

[Markus Schulz <msc@antzsystem.de>]

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 14:23, Sophana Kok wrote:
> Markus Schulz wrote:
> >On Wednesday 16 November 2005 16:03, Andy Furniss wrote:
> >>I use something similar and use ceil 286kbit while synced at
> >> 288kbit without problems.
>
> What thing similar do you use? I don't understand why it is not in
> the kernel already.

sounds like he has calculated the constant overhead for each htb-class 
and set the ceil value to according this. this is equivalent to the 
stuff from adsl-optimizer. in both ways you need to setup classes for 
packets with same average size or it won't work. Most important is the 
class for ACK-only packets cause they have the biggest overhead. 
correct me if i'm wrong.

> >should be easy to patch in. Overhead is only a simple variable which
> >will be added in htb/* module for each paket. Only sign/unsign
> > problem should be considered.
>
> How?

this refers to the possible negativ overhead mentioned from Andy Furniss 
by use of pppoe. But i don't understand whencever the -14 Bytes should 
come from. so i asked for explanation. 
If signed overhead is really needed, it can be easy added into the 
patches you meantioned (http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/ADSL-optimizer/). 
Cause these patches only add a constant offset to a htb class which 
will be set with modified iproute tc utility.

> The ppp over aal5 atm encapsulation is in almost all adsl lines isn't
> it? Isn't it standard?

yes, i think so. therefore i asked Andy to explain his objection.

> This makes a huge number of lines in the world.
> Are there other patches ?
> or distributions that already include these patches?

Don't know a distribution which already include these patches.
But the effort for a selfmade kernel with these patches is maintainable.

msc
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc