From: Phil Brutsche <phil@optimumdata.com>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LARTC] prio fighting
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:50:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-99367174308275@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-lartc-99351566704106@msgid-missing>
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Nikolai Vladychevski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have done this setup to give the machine 192.168.1.4 (masqueraded over
> dialup) the highest priority:
>
> #! /bin/bash
> WHAT="add"
> iptables -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -s 192.168.1.1 -t mangle -j MARK
> --set-mark 1
> iptables -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -s 192.168.1.4 -t mangle -j MARK
> --set-mark 4
> tc qdisc $WHAT dev ppp0 root handle 1: prio bands 3 priomap 0 1 2
> tc qdisc $WHAT dev ppp0 parent 1:1 handle 2: pfifo limit 1024
> tc qdisc $WHAT dev ppp0 parent 1:2 handle 3: pfifo limit 1024
> tc qdisc $WHAT dev ppp0 parent 1:3 handle 4: pfifo limit 1024
> tc filter add dev ppp0 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 0 handle 4 fw classid
> 1:2
> tc filter add dev ppp0 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 2 handle 1 fw classid
> 1:3
Have you tried "classid 2:" and "classid 3:" instead of "classid 1:2" and
"classid 1:3"? It would seem to me to work better that way.
> and it is working because form the stats I can see the packets are
> flowing:
>
> [root@qis /root]# tc -s -r qdisc show dev ppp0
> qdisc pfifo 4: limit 1024p
> Sent 42374 bytes 804 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0)
>
> qdisc pfifo 3: limit 1024p
> Sent 16535 bytes 381 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0)
>
> qdisc pfifo 2: limit 1024p
> Sent 589 bytes 10 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0)
>
> qdisc prio 1: bands 3 priomap 0 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
> Sent 59498 bytes 1195 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0)
>
>
> There is just 1 problem, the prioritization is not working. When I
> start downloading FTP on on the machine 192.168.1.1 , wait 20-30 secs
> and start another FTP session on 192.168.1.4 it does not gets the full
> bandwidth as it should get. What could be wrong? One workstation is
> linux (.1) , other is Win98 (.4), I don't know if this could be the
> issue.
I could be the subqueue discipline that you're using. I would think that
the tbf queue discipline would be more fair in this situation.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Brutsche phil@optimumdata.com
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-27 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-06-26 0:36 [LARTC] prio fighting Nikolai Vladychevski
2001-06-27 19:50 ` Phil Brutsche [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-99367174308275@msgid-missing \
--to=phil@optimumdata.com \
--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