From: Stef Coene <stef.coene@docum.org>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Excess BW again
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:29:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-106632737916600@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-lartc-106621592102405@msgid-missing>
On Wednesday 15 October 2003 12:42, Tom Olexa wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I've already posted st similar, but anyway...
> can anyone tell me, why the following setup
>
> tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb r2q 5
>
> tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 512kbit ceil
> 512kbit tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb rate
> 64kbit ceil 512kbit tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:11
> htb rate 256kbit ceil 512kbit
>
> tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 u32 \
> match ip dst 195.28.103.7 flowid 1:10
> tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 u32 \
> match ip dst 195.28.103.5 flowid 1:11
>
> doesn't distribute the excess bw in proportion of allocated bw?
>
> Ratio I expect is 64/256, but I get some 1/2.1 or similar. This
> varies according to r2q, but anyway it never gets close to 1/4.
>
> kernel 2.4.21, htb 3.12, but also tested on 2.4.18, htb 3.6 with
> similar results...
>
> Can anyone try this setup?
I tried it myself and this is the result (in bytes and the output is not like
it should be):
2.884 KB/s 4.258 KB/s T 7.143 KB/s G 75.41 KB/s 40.38% 40.38%
18.66 KB/s 41.64 KB/s T 60.31 KB/s G 67.82 KB/s 30.95% 36.17%
21.54 KB/s 43.08 KB/s T 64.62 KB/s G 66.75 KB/s 33.33% 35.25%
22.97 KB/s 45.95 KB/s T 68.92 KB/s G 67.30 KB/s 33.33% 34.76%
21.54 KB/s 44.52 KB/s T 66.06 KB/s G 67.05 KB/s 32.61% 34.33%
21.54 KB/s 43.08 KB/s T 64.62 KB/s G 66.64 KB/s 33.33% 34.17%
21.54 KB/s 44.51 KB/s T 66.06 KB/s G 66.56 KB/s 32.61% 33.95%
21.53 KB/s 43.07 KB/s T 64.61 KB/s G 66.32 KB/s 33.33% 33.88%
24.41 KB/s 43.07 KB/s T 67.48 KB/s G 66.45 KB/s 36.17% 34.13%
17.23 KB/s 44.53 KB/s T 61.76 KB/s G 65.98 KB/s 27.91% 33.55%
22.97 KB/s 41.64 KB/s T 64.62 KB/s G 65.85 KB/s 35.56% 33.73%
21.54 KB/s 44.51 KB/s T 66.06 KB/s G 65.87 KB/s 32.61% 33.64%
24.41 KB/s 44.51 KB/s T 68.93 KB/s G 66.11 KB/s 35.42% 33.78%
17.23 KB/s 41.64 KB/s T 58.87 KB/s G 65.59 KB/s 29.27% 33.49%
22.97 KB/s 44.52 KB/s T 67.50 KB/s G 65.72 KB/s 34.04% 33.53%
20.09 KB/s 43.06 KB/s T 63.16 KB/s G 65.56 KB/s 31.82% 33.42%
24.42 KB/s 44.54 KB/s T 68.96 KB/s G 65.76 KB/s 35.42% 33.55%
18.66 KB/s 43.08 KB/s T 61.74 KB/s G 65.53 KB/s 30.23% 33.37%
21.50 KB/s 41.58 KB/s T 63.09 KB/s G 65.40 KB/s 34.09% 33.41%
21.57 KB/s 44.58 KB/s T 66.16 KB/s G 65.44 KB/s 32.61% 33.37%
12.92 KB/s 43.08 KB/s T 56.00 KB/s G 64.99 KB/s 23.08% 32.95%
15.79 KB/s 43.07 KB/s T 58.87 KB/s G 64.71 KB/s 26.83% 32.69%
18.67 KB/s 45.95 KB/s T 64.62 KB/s G 64.71 KB/s 28.89% 32.53%
(10 rate) (11 rate) (10 + 11) (average 10+11) (10/11) (average 10/11)
So the ratio is 32.53%.
Ideally, this should be 64/256 = 25%
Not that bad.
Stef
--
stef.coene@docum.org
"Using Linux as bandwidth manager"
http://www.docum.org/
#lartc @ irc.openprojects.net
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-10-16 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-10-15 10:42 [LARTC] Excess BW again Tom Olexa
2003-10-16 17:29 ` Stef Coene [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=marc-lartc-106632737916600@msgid-missing \
--to=stef.coene@docum.org \
--cc=lartc@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox