[LARTC] HTB vs CBQ - is meaning of prio param the same?

2004-06-23 Thread adam f 
Hi,

I am looking working (!) qdisc that would guarantee preferential treatment
to priority (ex voice traffic). It is supposed to work as LLQ (Cisco) which
means it is PQ but with bandwidth limited for EF PHB traffic.

I did lots of tests with CBQ and prio set to 1 for EF PHB and prio 2 for
best effort. Although delay does not look like being guaranteed at all for
priority traffic.

Eventually I would like to compare HTB with prio's to CBQ with prio's set.

But HTB site says prio is only used for competing for unused (underlimited)
class bandwidths. So please clarify wheather prio parameter has realy
different meaning for CBQ and HTB?

I dont know if what i expect from HTB CBQ (with respect to acting like PRIO
scheduler) comparison makes any sense.

regards

adam f

___
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

[LARTC] CBQ - priority, config seems good but delay is large, need sb's advice!

2004-06-23 Thread adam f 
Hello,

My name is Adam and I try to get PQ by means of CBQ. Sorry for writing about
such a problems but I struggle with this for 2 weeks .. I have searched the
LARTC archive till 2000 and everyone say using priorities lowers delay.. but
it does NOT.

I can NOT see ANY difference when using priorities in CBQ (especially from
the delay point of view) - in comparioson to CBQ witohout
priorities. I did dozens of tests and CBQ and for packets less than 512
bytes delay is saw tooth chart changing (oscillating) from less than 1ms to
8ms periodically. .

Is there something wrong with my configuration???

My configuration is like this:

link bandwidth:
2Mbps

2 queues:
priority - bounded to 200kbps
best effort - at least 1.3Mbps (+ the rest of the link that is unused)

traffic generated:
priority - ca. 200kbps but less than (periodic, for different packet sizes
but rate constant: 96,128,256,512Bytes)
best effort - 2Mbps (periodic, 1000Bytes packets)

(so the summ of both flows is always MORE that link bandwidth which is
2Mbps)

My configuration is like this:

# Root
tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1:0 cbq bandwidth 100Mbit avpkt 1000 cell
8 mpu 1500

# Main Class
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 cbq bandwidth 100Mbit rate
1000kbit maxburst 10 allot 1000 cell 8 avpkt 1000 bounded isolated
# Prio
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:2 cbq bandwidth 100Mbit rate
100Kbit  weight 10Kbit  prio 1 allot 1000 cell 8 maxburst 10 avpkt 1000
# Best effort
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:3 cbq bandwidth 100Mbit rate
650Kbit weight 65Kbit prio 2 allot 1000 cell 8 maxburst 10 avpkt 1000

#IPv4 filters
tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 1 u32 match ip src
192.168.2.2 classid 1:2
tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 3 u32 match ip src
192.168.3.2 classid 1:3

please tell me if the weight parameter can mess with prio value?

regards

adam

___
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/