> On May 26, 2015 at 1:10 PM Cong Wang <cw...@twopensource.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:35 PM, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com > <jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com> wrote: > > > > I was also surprised to see that, although we are using a prio qdisc on the > > bond, the physical interface is showing pfifo_fast. > > > [...] > > > > So why the difference and why the pfifo_fast qdiscs on the physical > > interfaces? > > Qdisc is not aware of the network interface you attach it to, so it doesn't > know > whether it is bond or whatever stacked interface, the qdisc you add to bonding > master has no idea about its slaves. > > For pfifo_fast, it is the default qdisc when you install mq on root, it is > where > mq actually holds the packets. > > Hope this helps.
Grr . . . . I think this web client formatted my last response with HTML by default. My apologies. Yes, your reply does help, thank you although it then raises an interesting question. If I neglect the slave interfaces as I have done, can I accidentally impact the shaping I have done on the bond master? For example, I may prioritize real time voice and video so their relatively evenly spaced packets are prioritized and sent to the physical interface with no special ToS marking. Someone's selfish mail application sets ToS bits for high priority and decides to send a huge attachment. Those packets also flood into the physical interface behind the video and voice packets but now the physical interface using pfifo_fast sends the bulk email packets ahead of the voice and video. Is this an accurate scenario? Thus, if one uses traffic shaping on a bonded interface, should one then do something like use a prio qdisc with a single priority on the physical interfaces? Thanks - John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
