Re[2]: [LARTC] QOS and gameserver lags

Re[2]: [LARTC] QOS and gameserver lags

[Tom Verbeek]

Monday, August 25, 2003, 7:25:39 PM, Stef wrote:

SC> Can you check the bandwidth used in the different classes?  I have a script on
SC> www.docum.org that can do this for you.  I ask this because you have 
SC> different prio's and you have to be sure you never overlimit a class (send 
SC> more then the rate) or the latency can go up.

OK, I checked the bandwidth with monitor_tc.pl: everythings looks
okay. The increased latenca does not come from different prios. But I
still put every class on prio 0.

SC> You also have to check the quantum values.  For the 10 kbit class, quantum = 
10kbit / 8 (bit ->> byte) / 10 (r2q) = 12.5 byte and this < mtu = 1500 byte.  
SC> So add quantum 1500 if you create that class.

OK. I set quantum 1500 on the small class.


But the solution to my problem is much simpler:

my Provider says I get 192 kbits upstream.
When I do an ftp upload to a close server I get 175 kbits.
But to make my linux router the bottleneck I need to limit the rate to
160 kbits!!!!

Can anybody explain the difference in the numbers?


Please see the current version of my shaper here:

http://www.designobjekt.de/test/rc.trafficshaper

Now I only get minimally increased latency when playing
online games and having 100% upstream traffic at the same time.

Cheers,
Tom.



 
-- 
Word Perfect isn't, Excel doesn't, Works won't.

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: Re[2]: [LARTC] QOS and gameserver lags

[Stef Coene]

On Tuesday 26 August 2003 23:25, Tom Verbeek wrote:
> Monday, August 25, 2003, 7:25:39 PM, Stef wrote:
>
> SC> Can you check the bandwidth used in the different classes?  I have a
> script on SC> www.docum.org that can do this for you.  I ask this because
> you have SC> different prio's and you have to be sure you never overlimit a
> class (send SC> more then the rate) or the latency can go up.
>
> OK, I checked the bandwidth with monitor_tc.pl: everythings looks
> okay. The increased latenca does not come from different prios. But I
> still put every class on prio 0.
Ok.

> SC> You also have to check the quantum values.  For the 10 kbit class,
> quantum = 10kbit / 8 (bit ->> byte) / 10 (r2q) = 12.5 byte and this < mtu > 1500 byte. SC> So add quantum 1500 if you create that class.
>
> OK. I set quantum 1500 on the small class.
Ok.

> But the solution to my problem is much simpler:
>
> my Provider says I get 192 kbits upstream.
> When I do an ftp upload to a close server I get 175 kbits.
> But to make my linux router the bottleneck I need to limit the rate to
> 160 kbits!!!!
>
> Can anybody explain the difference in the numbers?
You have to limit the traffic on the linux router to less then your modem can 
handle so at least your modem is not the bottleneck.  So if you modem can 
handle 192kbit, I should take 185kbit or so.

> Please see the current version of my shaper here:
>
> http://www.designobjekt.de/test/rc.trafficshaper
>
> Now I only get minimally increased latency when playing
> online games and having 100% upstream traffic at the same time.
If the script is working you are fine with the 160kbit ceil, I should leave it 
like that.

Stef

-- 

stef.coene@docum.org
 "Using Linux as bandwidth manager"
     http://www.docum.org/
     #lartc @ irc.oftc.net

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/