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

[Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@dsl.pipex.com>]

Markus Schulz wrote:
> 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.

Nothing to do with htb classes, though you are right about small packets 
  being a pain - they typically use 2 x 53 byte atm cells.

The patches make htb lookup the delay of one less than the aal5 length 
in a table that is generated by a patched tc so the delay returned is 
the delay of the packet when it is atm cells.

> 
> 
>>>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.

It's pppoa, pppoe has > 14 overhead.

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