[LARTC] TCNG make test error
Hi: I try to install TCNG into my Fedora core3 but make test error,so when I compile my tc code , I saw the same error -> cpp: unregnized option `-$'my cpp verwion is cpp-3.4.2-6.fc3 , put kernel 2.4.27 & iproute2-2.6.9 source under tcsim/ , can anybody tell how to fix this problem??ThanksFionna___ 最新版 Yahoo!奇摩即時通訊 7.0，免費網路電話任你打！ http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] Download and upload independency
> Diego Cabrero wrote: > > All right, so priorizing ACK packets is one of the solutions. Then, do > you use 1:20 class for ACK packets? Please don't post in HTML. My Email reader was full of crap like . I create what I call an interactive class. I have a "T1" radio connection to the internet, so my upload rate is 1500kbit which I strangle to 1350 (90%). The interactive class has a rate of 200kbit, ceil of 1350kbit and prio 1 so it can borrow from all other classes (but it never needs to; I should find out how low rate can go but I haven't had time to do that). I set this up as 1:10 but I don't think the classid really matters (although I'm not sure). The rate, ceil, prio and burst do matter. Quantum is there because that lets me set any rate I want without having htb complain about r2q and because it is correct for ethernet. > Or just by setting the parameters > 'quantum 1514', 'prio #' and 'burst #k' is enough to do it inside > whatever traffic runs through 1:20?. Not if I understand what you are asking. You need a class that has nothing going through it except really important traffic (SSH and ACK for me), so you do not want anything else in it. I do not use esfq on this either. All my other classes use esfq (which is why I maintain it for 2.4 kernels). If I had two classes and I was going to create an interactive one, I'd steal a bit of bandwith from each of the other two, making sure they are set up to lend. It does not take much just for ACK. > In case you assign one whole htb class for ACK packets,if i am not > using priority bands (just ensuring VoIP´s QoS) is it so simple as > asignate them a low bandwidth (1Kb) and higher priority? Almost. Along with low bandwidth you need a big ceiling and the HIGHEST priority so it can borrow when necessary. But since the packets are small, you don't need a big burst. For VoIP, you need to try to keep it's class from lending when there is traffic and you sure don't want (e)sfq because that reorders the packets, which likely will disrupt your conversation. If everything is prio 0 (no prio specified), you can't be sure which class will lend spare bandwidth first. > Thanks a lot. > > -Diego You're welcome if this helps, otherwise you don't need to thank me ;) -- gypsy > gypsy escribió: > > > Diego Cabrero wrote: > > > > > >> Hello everyone: > >> As it is known, when you limit uplink bandwidth it usually gets > >> downlink > >> bandwidth to a lower value. > >> I just want to know what is the optimal configuration for eth1 and > >> imq0 > >> according to some variables of tc(HTB), txqueuelen, mtu, etc. to > >> make > >> these packet flows less independent on an ethernet based network. > >> > >> Thank you in advance. > >> > >> -Diego > >> > >> > > Diego, > > > > Since nobody else answered this, I'll give it a try. > > > > I accelerate all small packets on the egress side because this sends > > the > > ACK packets ASAP. Doing this improves download speed. > > > > I use 'quantum 1514', 'prio #' and 'burst #k' in my 'tc class add' > > lines. E.G.: > > tc class add dev eth1 parent 1:1 classid 1:20 htb rate $RATE ceil \ > > $CEIL burst 16k quantum 1514 prio 2 > > > > Make sure the sum of the rates is <= the parent rate. Some say it > > is > > better to patch htb to deque one packet at a time rather than 2. I > > don't. > > > > Be sure you change your linux kernel source > > vi ~linux/include/net/pkt_sched.h > > so it uses PSCHED_CPU because JIFFIES just does not cut the mustard. > > > > I am just now implementing IMQ. What a pain getting it to compile > > (bad > > linux 2.4 patch)! I can't say yet if this is the right approach, > > but I > > intend to accelerate SSH and put everything else into a default bulk > > class, adding an esfq qdisc: > > ~'parent 1:20 handle 20: esfq limit 64 depth 64 divisor 10 \ > > hash dst perturb 20' > > and then filter SSH by source and dest port 22 into accelerated > > 1:10. I > > want to shape the incoming flows by where the packets come from - > > but I > > might change my mind after I try this :o > > > > I looked at documentation on the DSL sites about tweaking, then at > > Oskar > > Andreasson's tutorial to understand the /proc settings, but I can't > > find > > my notes about what I changed. I did increase buffer sizes, but I > > can't > > recall anything further right now... IIRC, most things were correct > > so > > I did not change much. > > -- > > gypsy ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] multiple wrr as child of htb
Peter Surda wrote: at.matei schrieb: Hi all, hi Can I use wrr with 8 classes each as leaf for each htb child? Yes, but ESFQ may be better. I had stability problems when using more than 1 WRR per interface, but it is possible that it's fixed now. Furthermore, WRR is designed for large numbers so it is an overkill in your situation. Or, simply said: will each wrr classifier work on all seen ip addresses or just the addresses from its htb parent. Any seen IP, they are assigned dynamically. If there are too many, the classes are "recycled" in a LIFO. Ok, maybe I was not clear enough. What I'm interested in is the order of passing throught filters. WRR has an built-in filter. HTB child classes are fed by matching certain ip addresses (in my case htb chlid1 is for x.x.x.0/29, htb child2 is for x.x.x.8/29 ) and so on. I want to attach wrr1 as child to htb child 1 so the traffic get even divided between clients x.x.x.0/29, wrr2 as child to htb child 2 and so on. What I don't know is: 1/ tc filter match for is evaluated first 2/ if wrr1 is going to classify only hosts seen in x.x.x.0/29 or all hosts x.x.x.0/24 Regards, Alex Thnaks for any comments, NP. Alex Yours sincerely, Peter ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] multiple wrr as child of htb
Gabriel wrote: On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:13:06 +0200, at.matei wrote: Hi all, Here's the situation. I have 80 users sharing a internet link of 5Mb link. The users are grouped in /29 ip addr classes so I have 10 classes of users Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but how can you have 8 users/class in a /29 subnet? Isn't 6 (2^3-1) the max? Well, think not of ip separate classes but only grouping. From 255 addresses I can group 8 users by means of tc filter with x.x.x.x/29. There are not ip classes but qdisc classes. You're right about classical subnetting. Alex ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] multiple wrr as child of htb
at.matei schrieb: Hi all, hi Can I use wrr with 8 classes each as leaf for each htb child? Yes, but ESFQ may be better. I had stability problems when using more than 1 WRR per interface, but it is possible that it's fixed now. Furthermore, WRR is designed for large numbers so it is an overkill in your situation. Or, simply said: will each wrr classifier work on all seen ip addresses or just the addresses from its htb parent. Any seen IP, they are assigned dynamically. If there are too many, the classes are "recycled" in a LIFO. Thnaks for any comments, NP. Alex Yours sincerely, Peter -- http://www.shurdix.org - Linux distribution for routers and firewalls ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] Download and upload independency
All right, so priorizing ACK packets is one of the solutions. Then, do you use 1:20 class for ACK packets? Or just by setting the parameters 'quantum 1514', 'prio #' and 'burst #k' is enough to do it inside whatever traffic runs through 1:20?. In case you assign one whole htb class for ACK packets,if i am not using priority bands (just ensuring VoIP´s QoS) is it so simple as asignate them a low bandwidth (1Kb) and higher priority? Thanks a lot. -Diego gypsy escribió: Diego Cabrero wrote: Hello everyone: As it is known, when you limit uplink bandwidth it usually gets downlink bandwidth to a lower value. I just want to know what is the optimal configuration for eth1 and imq0 according to some variables of tc(HTB), txqueuelen, mtu, etc. to make these packet flows less independent on an ethernet based network. Thank you in advance. -Diego Diego, Since nobody else answered this, I'll give it a try. I accelerate all small packets on the egress side because this sends the ACK packets ASAP. Doing this improves download speed. I use 'quantum 1514', 'prio #' and 'burst #k' in my 'tc class add' lines. E.G.: tc class add dev eth1 parent 1:1 classid 1:20 htb rate $RATE ceil \ $CEIL burst 16k quantum 1514 prio 2 Make sure the sum of the rates is <= the parent rate. Some say it is better to patch htb to deque one packet at a time rather than 2. I don't. Be sure you change your linux kernel source vi ~linux/include/net/pkt_sched.h so it uses PSCHED_CPU because JIFFIES just does not cut the mustard. I am just now implementing IMQ. What a pain getting it to compile (bad linux 2.4 patch)! I can't say yet if this is the right approach, but I intend to accelerate SSH and put everything else into a default bulk class, adding an esfq qdisc: ~'parent 1:20 handle 20: esfq limit 64 depth 64 divisor 10 \ hash dst perturb 20' and then filter SSH by source and dest port 22 into accelerated 1:10. I want to shape the incoming flows by where the packets come from - but I might change my mind after I try this :o I looked at documentation on the DSL sites about tweaking, then at Oskar Andreasson's tutorial to understand the /proc settings, but I can't find my notes about what I changed. I did increase buffer sizes, but I can't recall anything further right now... IIRC, most things were correct so I did not change much. -- gypsy ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] multiple wrr as child of htb
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:13:06 +0200, at.matei wrote: > Hi all, > Here's the situation. > I have 80 users sharing a internet link of 5Mb link. > The users are grouped in /29 ip addr classes so I have 10 classes of users Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but how can you have 8 users/class in a /29 subnet? Isn't 6 (2^3-1) the max? > Thnaks for any comments, > > Alex -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] Multiple links and nat
I read the previous thread about this but I seem to have a small problem. I'm running gentoo with 2.6.14 kernel and have applied the patch from http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes. If I try to lynx to two different pages from the box itself it switches the interfaces every other time which is how it's supposed to work. If I use an extra machine and set it's gateway to 10.0.4.211(eth0), then all requests are being sent to just one interface all the time. The same happens if I try other machines. It's only requests generated inside the box which are being routed properly. I'm just wondering if something is amiss in my setup. I have also tried the mpath2.sh script, but I got the same results. My setup is like this: eth0: 10.0.4.211 (internal network) eth1: 192.168.1.2 (ISP1) eth2: 10.0.0.2 (ISP2) Commands: ip route add 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1 src 192.168.1.2 table T1 ip route add default via 192.168.1.1 table T1 ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 dev eth2 src 10.0.0.2 table T2 ip route add default via 10.0.0.1 table T2 ip rule add from 192.168.1.2 table T1 ip rule add from 10.0.0.2 table T2 ip route add default scope global nexthop via 192.168.1.1 dev eth1 weight 1 nexthop via 10.0.0.1 dev eth2 weight 1 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -s 10.0.4.0/255.255.254.0 -d 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -s 10.0.4.0/255.255.254.0 -d 10.0.0.0/24 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -s 10.0.4.0/255.255.254.0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth2 -s 10.0.4.0/255.255.254.0 -j MASQUERADE ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] multiple wrr as child of htb
Hi all, Here's the situation. I have 80 users sharing a internet link of 5Mb link. The users are grouped in /29 ip addr classes so I have 10 classes of users I want to create a root htb, then 10 htb childs each with 0.5Mb bandwidth. The traffic will be directed to each class using tc filters. Now, I want that each of 8 users from each class to share equally the class bandwidth. Can I use wrr with 8 classes each as leaf for each htb child? Or, simply said: will each wrr classifier work on all seen ip addresses or just the addresses from its htb parent. Thnaks for any comments, Alex ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
