On 24 June 2015 at 19:09, Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > On (2015-06-24 16:08 +0100), Dan Peachey wrote: > > Hey Dan, > > > class-of-service { > > traffic-control-profiles { > > 10M { > > scheduler-map 10M_COS; > > shaping-rate 10m; > guaranteed-rate 10m; # add this > > } >
If I do this, can I still oversubscribe the interface? For example, lets say I have 20 x IFL in an interface-set which I have shaped to 1G and each of those 20 IFL's have 100M shaper with child CoS policy - so 2:1 oversubscription. My understanding was that I would need to use PIR/shaper only for this and not touch G-rate since I cannot really offer a "guaranteed rate" because of the oversubscription. > > > Queue State Max Guaranteed Burst Weight Priorities > > Drop-Rules > > Index rate rate size G E > Wred > > Tail > > ------ ----------- ----------- ------------ ------- ------ ---------- > > ---------- > > 32 Configured 10000000 0 131072 320 GL EL 4 > > 0 > > 33 Configured 10000000 0 131072 320 GL EL 4 > > 0 > > 34 Configured 10000000 0 131072 26 GL EL 4 > > 0 > > 35 Configured 10000000 0 131072 13 GM EH 4 > > 127 > > 36 Configured 10000000 0 131072 1 GL EL 0 > > 255 > > 37 Configured 10000000 2400000 131072 320 GH EH 4 > > 193 > > 38 Configured 10000000 0 131072 1 GL EL 0 > > 255 > > 39 Configured 10000000 0 131072 1 GL EL 0 > > 255 > > Notice how g-rate is 0 for all but the policed class, all your queues > running > in excess area. Setting guarantee-rate == shaping-rate. > Right now the % does not mean anything, only thing that means is what is > excess priority (EL => excess low, EH => excess high, all EH traffic would > be > drained before any EL traffic is touched). > > I thought the weights were determined by the %? The weights are then used to schedule the queues appropriately. Even if the queues are in excess, they should be weighted correctly? Thanks, Dan _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp