[LARTC] dummy interfaces limit?
Hi all, Is there anyway to have more than 2 dummy interfaces? I need more of them but the system refuses to create it :P How can avoid this issue? Thanks. Luis Miguel Cruz. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] dummy interfaces limit?
Thanks :-] which is the limit for the dummies interfaces? Catalin(ux aka Dino) BOIE wrote: On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Luis Miguel Cruz wrote: Hi all, Is there anyway to have more than 2 dummy interfaces? I need more of them but the system refuses to create it :P How can avoid this issue? rmmod dummy modprobe dummy numdummies=16 Thanks. Luis Miguel Cruz. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ --- Catalin(ux aka Dino) BOIE catab at deuroconsult.ro http://kernel.umbrella.ro/ ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] dummy interfaces limit?
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Luis Miguel Cruz wrote: Thanks :-] No problem. which is the limit for the dummies interfaces? Don't worry about this. There RAM size and sizeof(int) limits the number. But you'll never touch this limit. Catalin(ux aka Dino) BOIE wrote: On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Luis Miguel Cruz wrote: Hi all, Is there anyway to have more than 2 dummy interfaces? I need more of them but the system refuses to create it :P How can avoid this issue? rmmod dummy modprobe dummy numdummies=16 Thanks. Luis Miguel Cruz. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ --- Catalin(ux aka Dino) BOIE catab at deuroconsult.ro http://kernel.umbrella.ro/ ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ --- Catalin(ux aka Dino) BOIE catab at deuroconsult.ro http://kernel.umbrella.ro/ ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] interesting expert problem - shaping over VPN
Here's a challenging problem for you experts to tackle: I'm trying to shape traffic going into an IPSEC interface which then goes over a DSL PPPoE interface. I figure I need to shape the DSL interface to keep it's hardware queue mostly empty, and to prioritize between IPSEC and non-IPSEC traffic. I also have to shape going into the IPSEC, which carries VoIP (high pri), VNC (med pri) and other (email, etc, low pri). I have it all set up and working, except that the IPSEC shaping doesn't seem to do any good whatsoever. Even if I allocate 99% of the bandwidth to the VoIP and 99% to IPSEC over PPPoE I still get break-ups in the VoIP signal when I do some heavy VNC. I tried such drastic things as reducing the ceiling to half of what the DSL line was spec'd (and tested) as supporting. I played with the numbers until they were really skewed (99%) in favor of VoIP, but still no joy. So my question is, am I missing something fundamental conceptually regarding shaping traffic into an IPSEC/VPN interface and then shaping that along with non-VPN traffic out over the single internet connection? Is there some buffering/queue stuff in IPSEC or PPPoE that would prevent me shaping properly? I am using FreeSWAN IPSEC on Fedora Core 1. Thanks for your help. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] multiprocesor : bridge/router ?
|On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:26:51 +0300 |raptor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | hi, | | does someone tried bridge and or router functionality of linux kernel on | multiprocessor system. | Does multiprocessor system increase network performance or give | ability to process higher traffic.. | | What about highest possible troughput someone have achieved ? | |Your performance is going depend more on the bus speed and type of |NIC used. SMP might help but only if you assign the IRQ for each |NIC to a different processor. Network performance is more dependant |on memory and bus bandwidth than processor (at least with current hardware). ]- hmm. you are probably right, I'll have to concentrate on PCI-bus and quality eth-cards . Any recomendation ? what about a combo ethernet cards ? . On a SMP machine how is IRQ assigned so that every diiferent netcard is assigned to different CPU. PS. It seems that nobody had test the troughput of linux networking.. If u have a link to such test pls give me a link.. Some info on which network cards offloads CPU more.. or any info u can give me on the possible max and sustained throughput on modern x86 computer. | ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] Limit on Primary Addresses
I am trying to configure a Linux box with all possible VLANs (4094 of them), and a subnet on each VLAN. Creating the VLANs isn't a problem. But, when I try to use ip addr add ... commands to assign an IP address to each VLAN interface, I get to do about 280 of them before all the interfaces on the box become unresponsive. I've also tried to assign the same IP addresses all to eth0, and I get the same result. The problem seems to hinge on the distinction between primary and secondary addresses. If you're reading the LARTC list, then you've probably had the need (e.g., load testing) to assign thousands of IP addresses to a single interface. However, it's usually the case that one is assigning multiple addresses that all belong to the same subnet. In that case, the first such IP address is primary and all the additional addresses that belong to the same subnet are secondary. My investigations tell me that secondary addresses are much lighter-weight. On the other hand, I don't seem to be able to assign more than about 280 primary addresses in the entire system before all the interfaces become unresponsive. For additional information about primary vs. secondary addresses, take a look at: http://www.linux-ip.net/html/linux-ip.html#tools-ip-address-add http://www.linux-ip.net/gl/ip-cref/node33.html ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] multiprocesor : bridge/router ?
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:04:09 +0300 raptor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: |On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:26:51 +0300 |raptor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | hi, | | does someone tried bridge and or router functionality of linux kernel on | multiprocessor system. | Does multiprocessor system increase network performance or give | ability to process higher traffic.. | | What about highest possible troughput someone have achieved ? | |Your performance is going depend more on the bus speed and type of |NIC used. SMP might help but only if you assign the IRQ for each |NIC to a different processor. Network performance is more dependant |on memory and bus bandwidth than processor (at least with current hardware). ]- hmm. you are probably right, I'll have to concentrate on PCI-bus and quality eth-cards . Any recomendation ? what about a combo ethernet cards ? . On a SMP machine how is IRQ assigned so that every diiferent netcard is assigned to different CPU. PS. It seems that nobody had test the troughput of linux networking.. If u have a link to such test pls give me a link.. Some info on which network cards offloads CPU more.. or any info u can give me on the possible max and sustained throughput on modern x86 computer. You want to look at Robert Olssen's work http://robur.slu.se/Linux/net-development/ ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] Guaranteed rate per class and maximum ceiling per element in class???
On Friday 17 September 2004 07:22, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote: Hi all, It is my understanding that with HTB, the rate and the ceiling are divided over the elements of the class. E.g. using a rate of 100 kb and a ceiling of 2000 kb for a class with 10 elements on a 100Mb NIC, the effect of the ceiling will be that if all elements are generating their maximimum possible trafic they will be effectively limited to ~ ceiling / number of elements, in this case 2000/10 = 200. Yep. But what I want is that any individual within a class is limited to an amount that is smaller that the class ceiling while maintaining the class ceiling. Is it possible to achieve a guaranteed rate per class, a ceiling per class AND maximum ceiling per individual element in class using TCNG 1.3 on Linux (Debian 2.6 kernel)? Otherwise? Yes, yes and yes :) The first 2 can be done with htb. For the third yes, you can use the wrr qdisc (I never tested this myself and I don't know if tcng can configure this). The wrr qdisc can be added to a htb class. Or you can add extra classes to the htb class. For htb shaping rules, see: http://www.docum.org/docum.org/faq/cache/10.html Stef -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using Linux as bandwidth manager http://www.docum.org/ ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] heavy uploads
Hi all iam using Iptables+TC+HTB on Redhat 9 working fine with the bandwidth control I am taging my eth1 with Vlan interface with Cisco Switch when even though i have mention ceil, its crossing more than Ceil, when they are effected Virus in their network or DoS attacks, its should be control the mentioned Ceil right, why this uploads are increaing.. when the uploads are increased all the users in the switch are getting effected how can i solve this problem, does any one have come across this kind of problem, if so, recomend me hare ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
