netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Beverley <andy@andybev.com>
To: Julien Vehent <julien@linuxwall.info>
Cc: "Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@redfish-solutions.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	netfilter <netfilter@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: QoS weirdness : HTB accuracy
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:50:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1278265807.1506.86.camel@andybev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1276204948.1403.13.camel@andybev>

> > I was, in fact, an error in my ruleset. I had put the 'linklayer atm' at
> > both the branch and leaf levels, so the overhead was computed twice,
> > creating those holes in the bandwidth.
> 
> I am seeing similar behaviour with my setup. Am I making the same
> mistake? A subset of my rules is as follows:
> 
> 
> tc qdisc add dev ppp0 root handle 1: htb r2q 1
> 
> tc class add dev ppp0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb \
>     rate ${DOWNLINK}kbit ceil ${DOWNLINK}kbit \
>     overhead $overhead linklayer atm                   <------- Here
> 
> tc class add dev ppp0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb \
>     rate 612kbit ceil 612kbit prio 0 \
>     overhead $overhead linklayer atm                   <------- And here
> 
> tc qdisc add dev ppp0 parent 1:10 handle 4210: \
>     sfq perturb 10 limit 50
> 
> tc filter add dev ppp0 parent 1:0 protocol ip \
>     prio 10 handle 10 fw flowid 1:10

I removed the overhead option on the first leaf, and the speeds change
to what I expect. However, the rules above are taken straight from the
ADSL Optimizer project, which was the source of the original overhead
patch for tc. So is the ADSL Optimizer project wrong?

Andy



  reply	other threads:[~2010-07-04 17:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-25 18:06 QoS weirdness : HTB accuracy Julien Vehent
2010-05-19  0:07 ` Philip A. Prindeville
2010-05-22 14:29   ` Julien Vehent
2010-06-10 21:22     ` Andrew Beverley
2010-07-04 17:50       ` Andrew Beverley [this message]
2010-07-07 13:07         ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2010-07-07 15:07           ` Jussi Kivilinna
2010-08-11 17:59             ` Andrew Beverley
2010-08-14 17:27               ` Jussi Kivilinna
2010-08-11 14:27           ` Andrew Beverley
2010-07-07 11:40 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer

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=1278265807.1506.86.camel@andybev \
    --to=andy@andybev.com \
    --cc=julien@linuxwall.info \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netfilter@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=philipp_subx@redfish-solutions.com \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).