Re: [LARTC] doubt about bridge qdisc
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:33:11 -0300 Marco Aurelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/16/07, Salatiel Filho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, i have a little doubt ; I have eth0 ethernet and eth1 wireless , and they are bridged in br0 Is there any difference in the behavior between do tc qdisc add dev br0 root sfq OR tc qdisc add dev eth0 root sfq tc qdisc add dev eth1 root sfq Yes. Only local traffic is passed trough br0 and only all interface traffic is passed trough each interface. Also since bridge is a pseudo device it has no transmit queue so there is no qdisc involved. -- Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] doubt about bridge qdisc
On 18 Sep 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also since bridge is a pseudo device it has no transmit queue so there is no qdisc involved. Just out of curiosity (I did not look at bridging details at all yet): Is this 2.6.x specific? Because on some linksys router with tomato firmware after a adding a qdisc to br0 i get: # uname -a Linux linksys 2.4.20 #43 Sun May 20 18:08:39 PDT 2007 mips unknown # ifconfig br0 br0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:XX inet addr:192.168.XX Bcast:192.168.XX Mask:255.255.255.128 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:201070 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:208548 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:32140173 (30.6 MiB) TX bytes:233464694 (222.6 MiB) # tc -s qdisc show dev br0 qdisc tbf 8002: rate 5Kbit burst 5993b lat 6.1ms Sent 233670717 bytes 208735 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 18) Greetings Jens ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] doubt about bridge qdisc
On 9/18/07, Jens Thiele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18 Sep 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also since bridge is a pseudo device it has no transmit queue so there is no qdisc involved. Just out of curiosity (I did not look at bridging details at all yet): Is this 2.6.x specific? Because on some linksys router with tomato firmware after a adding a qdisc to br0 i get: # uname -a Linux linksys 2.4.20 #43 Sun May 20 18:08:39 PDT 2007 mips unknown # ifconfig br0 br0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:XX inet addr:192.168.XX Bcast:192.168.XX Mask:255.255.255.128 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:201070 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:208548 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:32140173 (30.6 MiB) TX bytes:233464694 (222.6 MiB) # tc -s qdisc show dev br0 qdisc tbf 8002: rate 5Kbit burst 5993b lat 6.1ms Sent 233670717 bytes 208735 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 18) Greetings Jens ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc This is exactly the piece of hardware i am doing tests. A WRT54G with dd-wrt micro. And i also have: tc -s qdisc show dev br0 qdisc sfq 8001: limit 128p quantum 1514b Sent 2814 bytes 38 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0) and i redirect all traffic in br0 to a IMQ device and i can shape internet natted traffic using htb and it works with no problems. -- []'s Salatiel O maior prazer do inteligente é bancar o idiota diante de um idiota que banca o inteligente. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] doubt about bridge qdisc
On 9/18/07, Salatiel Filho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/18/07, Jens Thiele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18 Sep 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also since bridge is a pseudo device it has no transmit queue so there is no qdisc involved. Just out of curiosity (I did not look at bridging details at all yet): Is this 2.6.x specific? Because on some linksys router with tomato firmware after a adding a qdisc to br0 i get: # uname -a Linux linksys 2.4.20 #43 Sun May 20 18:08:39 PDT 2007 mips unknown # ifconfig br0 br0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:XX inet addr:192.168.XX Bcast:192.168.XX Mask: 255.255.255.128 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:201070 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:208548 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:32140173 (30.6 MiB) TX bytes:233464694 (222.6 MiB) # tc -s qdisc show dev br0 qdisc tbf 8002: rate 5Kbit burst 5993b lat 6.1ms Sent 233670717 bytes 208735 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 18) Greetings Jens ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc This is exactly the piece of hardware i am doing tests. A WRT54G with dd-wrt micro. And i also have: tc -s qdisc show dev br0 qdisc sfq 8001: limit 128p quantum 1514b Sent 2814 bytes 38 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0) and i redirect all traffic in br0 to a IMQ device and i can shape internet natted traffic using htb and it works with no problems. -- []'s Salatiel O maior prazer do inteligente é bancar o idiota diante de um idiota que banca o inteligente. Well , i just did a few tests here and i can use htb on br0. Although there are still a few things that i do not understand, for example: I have a default htb class 1:99 limited to 8kb/s , and one main class with 512kbit/s which is equally distributed to two childs with rate 256 and ceil 512. i marked the packets using iptables -j CLASSIFY, and everything is working, each child can download at the expected rate , and any other machine not specified in the iptables are automatically shaped to 8kb/s as expected. But the doubt is : to mark i use iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -s ! 192.168.254.0/24 -d MACHINE_IP_TO_BE_SHAPED -j CLASSIFY --set-class x:yz, this way traffic coming from my local network to my local network would not be shaped , but i was thinking , should not this traffic enter in default class ? I can transfer from one wireless machine to a ethernet machine [both in the br0] at 2Mbps , what means it is not being shaped at all. [This is what i wanted , but i do not understand why it is not going in default class] ~ # tc -s qdisc ls dev br0 qdisc htb 1: r2q 10 default 99 direct_packets_stat 4 Sent 41307007 bytes 29496 pkts (dropped 556, overlimits 9552) ~ # tc -s class ls dev br0 class htb 1:99 root prio 0 rate 8000bit ceil 8000bit burst 1609b cburst 1609b Sent 112219 bytes 846 pkts (dropped 134, overlimits 0) rate 336bit lended: 846 borrowed: 0 giants: 0 tokens: 2366718 ctokens: 2366718 class htb 1:1 root rate 512000bit ceil 512000bit burst 2284b cburst 2284b Sent 41278639 bytes 28838 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0) rate 1bit 2pps lended: 12098 borrowed: 0 giants: 0 tokens: 18141 ctokens: 18141 class htb 1:2 parent 1:1 prio 0 rate 256000bit ceil 512000bit burst 1919b cburst 2239b Sent 37306226 bytes 25556 pkts (dropped 410, overlimits 0) rate 3912bit 1pps lended: 14308 borrowed: 11248 giants: 0 tokens: -45271 ctokens: 14551 class htb 1:3 parent 1:1 prio 0 rate 256000bit ceil 512000bit burst 1919b cburst 2239b Sent 3972413 bytes 3282 pkts (dropped 12, overlimits 0) rate 5384bit lended: 2432 borrowed: 850 giants: 0 tokens: 90105 ctokens: 52787 -- []'s Salatiel O maior prazer do inteligente é bancar o idiota diante de um idiota que banca o inteligente. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] doubt about bridge qdisc
On 9/16/07, Salatiel Filho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, i have a little doubt ; I have eth0 ethernet and eth1 wireless , and they are bridged in br0 Is there any difference in the behavior between do tc qdisc add dev br0 root sfq OR tc qdisc add dev eth0 root sfq tc qdisc add dev eth1 root sfq Yes. Only local traffic is passed trough br0 and only all interface traffic is passed trough each interface. -- []'s Salatiel O maior prazer do inteligente é bancar o idiota diante de um idiota que banca o inteligente. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc -- Marco Casaroli SapucaiNet Telecom +55 35 34712377 ext. 5 ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] doubt about bridge qdisc
Hi guys, i have a little doubt ; I have eth0 ethernet and eth1 wireless , and they are bridged in br0 Is there any difference in the behavior between do tc qdisc add dev br0 root sfq OR tc qdisc add dev eth0 root sfq tc qdisc add dev eth1 root sfq -- []'s Salatiel O maior prazer do inteligente é bancar o idiota diante de um idiota que banca o inteligente. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
