From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladimir Ivashchenko Subject: Re: HTB accuracy for high speed Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:04:16 +0300 Message-ID: <20090519140416.GA21270@francoudi.com> References: <298f5c050905150745p13dc226eia1ff50ffa8c4b300@mail.gmail.com> <298f5c050905150749s3597328dr8dd15adbd7a37532@mail.gmail.com> <20090516141430.GB3013@ami.dom.local> <298f5c050905180736m303f0c79ha30d3f791222fa1b@mail.gmail.com> <1242688479.9558.60.camel@hazard2.francoudi.com> <1242689267.11814.1.camel@hazard2.francoudi.com> <20090519110311.GA5521@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net, davem@davemloft.net, devik@cdi.cz, Antonio Almeida To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from cerber.thunderworx.net ([217.27.32.18]:2175 "EHLO cerber.thunderworx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753243AbZESOET (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 10:04:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090519110311.GA5521@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > Please disregard my comment about HFSC. It still overspills heavily. > > > > On a 400 mbps limit, I'm getting 520 mbps actual throughput. > > I guess you should send some logs. Your previous report seem to show Can you give some hints on which logs you would like to see? > the sum of sc rates of of children could be too high. You seem to > expect the parent's sc and ul should limit this, but actually children > rates decide and parent's rates are mainly for lending/borrowing (at The children's ceil rate is 70% of the parent 1:2 class rate. > least in HTB). So, it would be nice to try with one leaf class first, > (similarly to Antonio) how high rates are respected. Unfortunately its difficult for me to play with classes as its real traffic. I'll try to get a traffic generator. > High drop should be OK if the flow is much faster than scheduling/ > hardware send rate. It could be a bit higher than in older kernels > because of limited requeuing, but this could be corrected with > longer queue lenghts (sfq has a very short queue: max 127). I don't think its sfq, since I have the same sfq qdiscs with HSFC. Also I'm comparing this to my production HTB box has 2.6.21.5 with esfq and no bond (just eth), esfq also has 127p limit. I tried to get rid of bond on the outbound traffic, I balanced traffic via eth0 and eth2 manually by splitting routes going through them. I still had the same issue with HTB not reaching the full speed. I'm going to try testing exactly the same configuration on 2.6.29 as I have on 2.6.21.5 tonight. The only difference would be that I use sfq(dst) instead of esfq(dst) which is not available on 2.6.29. -- Best Regards Vladimir Ivashchenko Chief Technology Officer PrimeTel, Cyprus - www.prime-tel.com