Re: [LARTC] counter-strike

[Sorin Panca <sorin.panca@gmail.com>]

Andreas Klauer wrote:

>If that SFQ is the standard sfq with a queuelength of 128 packets, 
>it might be responsible for some of the delay.
>
The command was: sfq perturb 10

> Unless you have 
>connections in there that can choke the whole bandwidth (probably 
>possible with CS if you set the rates up, I don't know), you may 
>not need SFQ for interactive bands at all.
>
>  
>
I'll be glad to use pfifo_fast but adding that qdisc explicitly I get a
segmentation fault. If I don't add a leaf qdisc, how can I be sure
pfifo_fast is used? Or it's just a pfifo?

>>People in my LAN play almost exclusively in MAN, not in the Internet. I
>>allocated such high bandwidth because htb would allocate the spare based
>>on classes' rates ratios. And since 1:1 is a root class as 1:2 and 1:3
>>(MAN and Internet respectively) it had to have such a rate even if it is
>>not found in my real bandwidth.
>>    
>>
"//Any unused bandwidth can be used by any class which needs it (in
proportion of its allocated share)."
From http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/manual/userg.htm
_In proportion of its allocated share._

//

>I've never dealt with MANs before, so I may be completely wrong. 
>Usually you should not have more than one root class, and you should 
>not let HTB think it can use more bandwidth than there actually is. 
>It's extremely hard to understand the logic behind setups like this 
>and therefore likely to get unexpected results from them.
>  
>
I am certain that CS does not have large banwidth requierments, but it
needs very low latency. If I was to allocate a real bandwidth quantum,
then the competition between CS and other traffic (MAN and Internet)
would not be fair even if it has the lowest prio. So I had to lie htb
about the available bandwidth based upon the fact that bandwidth
requirements for CS are low and bursty. HTB would not allocate bandwidth
to a service that doesn't need it. (Or so I think; I may be wrong about
that... Please correct me if I do.).

I need more that one root class, because the bandwidths are separate and
not supperposable. So what MAN can spare, Internet cannot use and
vice-versa. (And MAN can spare a lot!)
I tested a setup with a 1:A root class and 1:1; 1:2; 1:3 and 1:4 were
child classes of 1:A. I got the same results. But I needed to lower the
latency so I deleted that 1:A root class...
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc