From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladimir Ivashchenko Subject: Re: HTB accuracy for high speed Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:44:00 +0300 Message-ID: <20090521074400.GA19113@francoudi.com> References: <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> <20090519140416.GA21270@francoudi.com> <20090519201027.GA4751@ami.dom.local> <1242857245.13519.17.camel@hazard2.francoudi.com> <4A148838.8010809@cosmosbay.com> <20090521072050.GA2892@ami.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Dumazet , netdev@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net, davem@davemloft.net, devik@cdi.cz, Antonio Almeida , Corey Hickey To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from cerber.thunderworx.net ([217.27.32.18]:2795 "EHLO cerber.thunderworx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751506AbZEUHoF (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2009 03:44:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090521072050.GA2892@ami.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > I don't know why more of esfq wasn't merged, anyway similar > functionality could be achieved in current kernels with sch_drr + > cls_flow, alas not enough documented. Here is some hint: > http://markmail.org/message/h24627xkrxyqxn4k Can I balance only by destination IP using this approach? Normal IP flow-based balancing is not good for me, I need to ensure equality between destination hosts. > > Jarek P. > > PS: I guess, you wasn't very consistent if your main problem was > exceeding or not reaching htb rate, and there is quite a difference. Yes indeed :( I'm trying to migrate from 2.6.21 eth/htb/esfq to 2.6.29 bond/htb/sfq, and that introduces a lot of changes. Apparently during some point I changed sfq divisor from 1024 to 2048 and forgot about it. Now I realize that the problems I reported were as follows: 1) HTB exceeds target when I use HTB + sfq + divisor 1024 2) HFSC exceeds target when I use HFSC + sfq + divisor 1024 3) HTB does not reach target when I use HTB + sfq + divisor 2048 I will check again scenario 1) with the latest patches from the list. > Vladimir Ivashchenko wrote, On 05/08/2009 10:46 PM: > > > Exporting HZ=1000 doesn't help. However, even if I recompile the kernel > > to 1000 Hz and the burst is calculated correctly, for some reason HTB on > > 2.6.29 is still worse at rate control than 2.6.21. > > > > With 2.6.21, ceil of 775 mbits, burst 99425b -> actual rate 825 mbits. > > With 2.6.29, same ceil/burst -> actual rate 890 mbits. > ... > > Vladimir Ivashchenko wrote, On 05/17/2009 10:29 PM: > > > Hi Antonio, > > > > FYI, these are exactly the same problems I get in real life. > > Check the later posts in "bond + tc regression" thread. > ... -- Best Regards Vladimir Ivashchenko Chief Technology Officer PrimeTel, Cyprus - www.prime-tel.com