Stef Coene wrote: > On Tuesday 13 August 2002 01:07, Tobias Geiger wrote: > >>Arindam Haldar wrote: >> >>>hi Alex, >>>thanx so much.. :) .. thanx to all >>>my IMQ & htb3 test rules are working ok.. the best part--> imq handling >>>both in & out traffic now.. :) >> >>I also had this setup, and i also thought of it as a "cool thing" :) >>but then Patrick told me, that it's not so clever: the incoming traffic >>must pass 2 qdiscs (interface-qdisc and imq-qdisc) and this is bad/not >>good because >>1) cpu - overhead (but this could be negleted) AND >>2) these 2 qdiscs COULD drop packets and no one would know of the other >>having dropped s.th. -> retransmit >>ok. case 2 is not so realistic, as the qdisc on the interface normaly >>is the qfifo but nevertheless point 1) and the possibility of 2) made me >>think that queing double unnecessary. > > Basic incoming shaping can be done with the ingress qdisc and the policers. > This is not a real qdisc with a queue, but it can throttle down incoming > packets without creating extra delays. It just droppes incoming packets > untill the wanted rate is reached. > > Stefi have acheived restrictinng both in&out trafic using imq0.. i have marked the packets on different ineterface, hence sending them to the rules i want & then used **FORWARD** to imq .!.. it works pretty good, though done in a test bed of 4 ip.. i want to scale it to our running linux box handling about 250 ip's with 1.5mbps link.. the question now i have start thinking, after Tobias Geiger'smail is --> what will be the cpu overhead when the linix box also runs squid in it.. withh htb3 & imq show the same result as shown in the test ? i hope & feel it will .. :) A.H
_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
