From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Fink Subject: Re: tbf/htb qdisc limitations Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:36:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20101013233653.1e363692.billfink@mindspring.com> References: <4CB1A22B.9090701@gmail.com> <20101012101022.GA8578@ff.dom.local> <20101012215932.GA1945@del.dom.local> <4CB4DE6E.7030802@hp.com> <20101013062649.GA6915@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rick Jones , Steven Brudenell , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.61]:48788 "EHLO elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751301Ab0JNDjL (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:39:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20101013062649.GA6915@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 03:17:18PM -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > >>> my burst problem is the only semi-legitimate motivation i can think > >>> of. the only other possible motivations i can imagine are setting > >>> "limit" to buffer more than 4GB of packets and setting "rate" to > >>> something more than 32 gigabit; both of these seem kind of dubious. is > >>> there something else you had in mind? > >> > >> > >> No, mainly 10 gigabit rates and additionally 64-bit stats. > > > > Any issue for bonded 10 GbE interfaces? Now that the IEEE have ratified > > (June) how far out are 40 GbE interfaces? Or 100 GbE for that matter. > > Alas packet schedulers using rate tables are still around 1G. Above 2G > they get less and less accurate, so hfsc is recommended. I was just trying to do an 8 Gbps rate limit on a 10-GigE path, and couldn't get it to work with either htb or tbf. Are you saying this currently isn't possible? Or are you saying to use this hfsc mechanism, which there doesn't seem to be a man page for? -Bill