Re: [LARTC] Re: For leaf classes is best PFIFO or SFQ?

2006-06-16 Thread Damjan 
 Well, pfifo is a discipline at the end of class, not the class.
 
 I'm using sfq for every customer (the are limited to 256/384/512kbit), so 
 they 
 will be able to use the Internet even when using p2p programs.

But p2p programs create a lot of connection flows, so statistically SFQ
will give the p2p a lot more traffic to them, compared to just several
flows for normal trafic like http, pop3 and smtp.

Or you're doing something else too?

-- 
damjan | дамјан
This is my jabber ID -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 -- not my mail address, it's a Jabber ID --^ :)
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] Re: For leaf classes is best PFIFO or SFQ?

2006-06-04 Thread Stefano Mainardi 
2006/6/2, Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stefano Mainardi wrote: Hi to all, i'm following this guide (http://www.opalsoft.net/qos/DS-28.htm), is very detailed, but i'm a bit confused about queuing disciplinse of
 leaf classes. In this guide the author uses PFIFO (see the scheme that i attached at message) in this way: # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo lmit 10
rather that way:# tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo limit 10therefore??? I do not understand ...-- Stefano MainardiPresidente Associazione ILDN - Italian Linux Distro Network
Mobile: 349/3917212Skype: mainardistefanoIM (ICQ): 250-292-408Blog: http://www.mainardistefano.org
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] Re: For leaf classes is best PFIFO or SFQ?

2006-06-04 Thread Kajetan Staszkiewicz 
Dnia piątek, 2 czerwca 2006 13:09, Stefano Mainardi napisał(a): 
 2006/6/2, Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  Stefano Mainardi wrote:
   Hi to all,
   i'm following this guide (http://www.opalsoft.net/qos/DS-28.htm), is
   very detailed, but i'm a bit confused about queuing disciplinse of
   leaf classes.
  
   In this guide the author uses PFIFO (see the scheme that i attached at
   message) in this way:
  
   # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo lmit 10
   ^
 
  rather that way:
 
  # tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo limit 10
 ^

 therefore??? I do not understand ...

Well, pfifo is a discipline at the end of class, not the class.

I'm using sfq for every customer (the are limited to 256/384/512kbit), so they 
will be able to use the Internet even when using p2p programs.

-- 
| pozdrawiam / greetings | powered by Trustix, Gentoo and FreeBSD   |
|  Kajetan Staszkiewicz  | jabber,email,www: vegeta()tuxpowered net |
|Vegeta  | IMQ devnames: http://www.tuxpowered.net  |
`^--'


pgpzQUKn34R6R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

[LARTC] Re: For leaf classes is best PFIFO or SFQ?

2006-06-02 Thread Jarek Poplawski 

Stefano Mainardi wrote:

Hi to all,
i'm following this guide (http://www.opalsoft.net/qos/DS-28.htm), is
very detailed, but i'm a bit confused about queuing disciplinse of
leaf classes.

In this guide the author uses PFIFO (see the scheme that i attached at
message) in this way:

# tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo lmit 10


rather that way:

# tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo limit 10

Jarek P.

___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc