From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Lloyd Standish" Subject: Re: bandwidth-limiting on LAN interface egress (2) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:25:44 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1321480803.2382.62.camel@andybev-desktop> <1321796319.2382.948.camel@andybev-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1321796319.2382.948.camel@andybev-desktop> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed delsp=yes" To: netfilter@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:38:39 -0600, Andrew Beverley wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 16:56 -0600, Lloyd Standish wrote: >> Can I assume from your comments that you think queuing in the router >> should not cause big latency problems as long as interactive traffic >> is given highest priority? > > My personal opinion is that it should be okay, although depends what you > define as "big latency". I've been running the rules previously > described for a while now, and whilst they're not perfect, the latency > is minimal (I comfortably use SSH whilst the link is saturated). > > You might also want to check out some of the "buffer bloat" discussions: > > http://netoptimizer.blogspot.com/ > > http://gettys.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/introducing-the-criminal-mastermind-bufferbloat/ > > Andy > Hi Andy, Thanks much for your insights, and for the "buffer bloat" links. We will be implementing per-user bandwidth-limiting in a couple of weeks. However, for the moment I was (urgently) asked to skip the bandwidth-limiting and just get a load-balancing router going with some traffic shaping. That allowed me to stop using qdiscs on the LAN interface. I have an HTB qdisc on egress of each outward-facing interface, and a policing qdisc on each ingress. It appears to be load-balancing OK, using "nexthop" to multiple routing tables in the default route, but I can't set a default route in each of the "custom" routing tables. (See my other thread.) -- Lloyd