Re: no bug in tcng; tc kbit v. tcng kbps [LARTC] was tcng error

["Martin A. Brown" <mabrown-lartc@securepipe.com>]

Charles,

 : #include "fields.tc"
 : #include "ports.tc"

[ You don't really need to explicitly include fields.tc and ports.tc,
  because they are implicitly included by tcc. ]

[ some snipped stuff ]

 : ah ha -- thanks for this!!!! much clearer now ...

Most certainly.  I think this is one of the more confusing aspects of
Linux traffic control.

 : perhaps this table is worthy of inclusion in the howto or a
 : compatibility option in tcng?

It's (now*) written in several places [0], [1], [2]*.  Which HOWTO were
you consulting?  The LARTC HOWTO?  It doesn't (yet) cover tcng, to my
knowledge.

 : curious also on your experience with ingress -- i noticed that using a
 : Single Leaky Bucket, and playing with the cbs parameter can
 : dramatically (obviously) affect the ingress policing. is there a
 : general rule of thumb in calculating the cbs size based on the cir?

I don't have a quick and easy answer....perhaps one of Stef's graphs [3]
will help you choose a bucket size.  Because a larger bucket supports
burstier traffic, it may be your choice in many situations.  Others may
want to prevent any bursting, and may deliberately wish to use a small
bucket.

This is also where some experimentation will lend a hand.  Better to try a
few bucket sizes, and see where you/your users are comfortable.

-Martin

 [0] http://linux-ip.net/gl/tcng/node21.html
 [1] http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Traffic-Control-tcng-HTB-HOWTO/misc.html
*[2] http://www.docum.org/stef.coene/qos/faq/cache/74.html
 [3] http://docum.org/

   * added (at your suggestion) to the LARTC FAQ-o-Matic

-- 
Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe, Inc. --- mabrown@securepipe.com

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