Re: [LARTC] Re: Current Script
Andy Furniss wrote: I think the way you are using classify means that each packet has to go through 4x more checks than if you did the same thing with --or-mark but with 53 users it may not be worth the extra hassle of optimising. Although you could get the same reduction using classify in combination with a user defined chain for each class of traffic. Andy. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] nesting htbs
I wouldn't put sfq on interactive - I would add a bfifo so I could set and play with the buffer lengths. I agree. I think SFQ might reorder packets? It sometimes seems to cause some difficult to trace gremlins on my VoIP stuff, which might be due to packet re-ordering? Best to stick with a bfifo I think Ed W ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] HTB is being hang my computer :/
Andy Furniss wrote: Rio Martin. wrote: I tried to made dumb rules Andy .. after incoming packets jump to ( -i eth0 -j IMQ1) i made another jump when packets leaving out eth1 (-o eth1 -j IMQ1) he he he , results, kernel crash and reboot several times when big packets arrived. So, enough for the try n error, wont try again. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/t3rm# uname -a Linux DTC 2.4.29 #1 Sat Feb 12 16:26:06 WIT 2005 i686 unknown - Rio.Martin - Yea I got 2.6.10 IIRC to crash doing similar (to make eth0 single duplex) I'll have to try again sometime with a later kernel. Well I tried and I couldn't get 2.6.12-rc1 to crash doesn't mean you couldn't of course. Andy. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] HTB is being hang my computer :/
Adis Nezirovic wrote: after incoming packets jump to ( -i eth0 -j IMQ1) i made another jump when packets leaving out eth1 (-o eth1 -j IMQ1) he he he , results, kernel crash and reboot several times when big packets arrived. So, enough for the try n error, wont try again. I think kernel panics are triggered by IMQ. I was able to solve that problem with following rules: iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -s ! 192.168.100.100 -j IMQ --todev imq0 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -j IMQ --todev imq0 (eth0 is my internal NIC, with 192.168.100.100 ip address). i.e. no download shaping from local machine. By using the same IMQ and NIC device for both, POSTROUTING and PREROUTING, I am able to simulate half-duplex link. (bandwidth for upload/download is shared). tcng works great in the above combination. Kernel 2.6.11.11 (with ck patches) I am lucky I don't really have to shape for single duplex. There are alternatives eg if you only need to do forwarded traffic mark -i eth0 -o eth1 in forward and visa versa and then jump to imq for the marked packets just from postrouting. If you need to include local traffic and don't need to hook imq after de-nat in prerouting you could use a modified dummy device instead. Replace drivers/net/dummy.c with the one attached rebuild and you can shape with it. I can't find the script I tested but could do another example sometime if anyone needed. Andy. dummy.c.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] Traffic shaping on WAN(serial) device
Vanitha Ramaswami wrote: Hi, In our product i am using the High Speed Serial driver as the WAN interface. I've implemented the HSS as a serial driver and i am running PPP to connect to the internet. I have both Voice data + FTP data going thro the PPP session. Is it possible for me to use the Traffic shaper(wonder shaper) in my case/ Do i need to make the HSS driver to appear as a network device inorder to run the traffic shaper If you have ppp0 you should be able to shape on that OK. Andy. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] Lamer needs help for basic tc setup
Geri Fehringer wrote: Hi fellows, i'm just a newbie to use the cool tc and played around the last 2 weeks. I'm quite confident - in theory - what's possible and the basic difference between the queuing disciplines. We're using a Fedora Core 3 box as Gateway (iptables,tc,iproute2 with NAT). Clients are coming in via eth1 and outgouing traffic (2Mbit/s SDSL) through eth0. So we would like to enable bandwidth limitation per-user, so i just used several scripts (htp from sourceforge,cbq.init ,wondershaper etc). (Each client: Downstream max 128kbit/s, Upstream max 90kbit/s) Shaping is working fine if i mark this specific source with a iptables rule, but as soon i apply multiple different source ip's to mark it within the same queue, all are sharing my limitation and i thought each of them will get the rate-limiting. You need to have a seperate class and mark for each user I also tried the u23 matching within tc, but same effect, When doing NAT u32 will work for downloads shaped on the lan facing interface but not for uploads on the wan interface you need to mark/classify. qdisc cbq 1: rate 2Mbit (bounded,isolated) prio no-transmit I would use htb with a class for each user - It would probably be nicer to seperate interactive traffic out from bulk aswell - depends on how many users share the bandwidth really. Andy. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] ADSL Calculator
Tobias Diedrich wrote: Hi, I've written a small javascript ADSL throughput calculator: http://nukunuku.yamamaya.is-a-geek.org/~ranma/adsl.html Feel free to submit alternative presets (I currently have presets for three german telecom speed variants: T-DSL (1000|2000|3000), derived from http://www2.lancom.de/kb.nsf/5d445c701b3ff52dc1256e7700297e5c/27c6ee1c3e3f74b0c1256e94004a433e?OpenDocument). Comments, suggestions, spelling nitpicks? Looks good - one picky point - if your overhead means only 4 bytes padding at default mtu are needed, then reducing mtu to be optimal for IP and above levels may be less efficient from the point of view of the tcp data because of the reduced payload vs fixed overheads. I haven't done the maths on that :-) Andy. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] They're killing me (the spammers)
Yes, last night it was 4Mbps the rate of incoming mails. I was wondering if I apply HTB to the following scheme: router - gw-iface - MX-server If HTB (new verb) the interface that communicates with MX, say, 2mbit, what will occur to the Input queue of gw-router-iface? Will I still get the link full for 4mbit or will it get lower to 2mbit too, as the inner interface? Appreciate comments -- Je ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] Lamer needs help for basic tc setup
When doing NAT u32 will work for downloads shaped on the lan facing interface but not for uploads on the wan interface you need to mark/classify. is it necessary to mark every ip with separate mark ? all clients in my net have the same speed, can i mark them all with for example : 10 ? -- *Dariusz 'tdi' Dwornikowski | Gentoo | admin at pozman.pl | *[JID]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[gg]:2266034|[IRC]:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | *[MAIL]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[WWW]:www.tdi.pozman.pl | *Serwery,administracja,webapps - www.ProAdmin.com.pl | *Fingerprint:43E21CC46DAFD2F754E91547D59B39F56AAA4B5F | pgpmIDfLUlYtm.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
