On 07/30/07 15:48, Ralf Gross wrote:
I tried this setup a while ago. Both hosts were connected to a Cisco
switch. On the linux hosts I created bond0 interfaces (round robin)
and the switch ports on both switches were configured as Port
Channels.
Seeing as how this is a short coming of the switc
On 07/30/07 15:12, Ralf Gross wrote:
I've tried bonding before. But this didn't work either because the
cisco switch decides on a src/dst mac/ip hash which port of the port
channel will be used. But in my case the hash is always the same
because between host A and host B. Thus always the same i
Paul Zirnik schrieb:
> On Monday 30 July 2007 16:10, Ralf Gross wrote:
> >
> > My goal is to increase the bandwidth for a single tcp session between
> > the two hosts for a backup job (per packet round robin?), not for
> > multiple connections between many hosts. I know that I won't get 2 x
> > 115
Grant Taylor schrieb:
> On 07/30/07 09:10, Ralf Gross wrote:
> >I'm trying to increase the bandwidth between two hosts (backup). Both
> >hosts are in the same /24 subnet and each of them is connected to a
> >Cisco switch by 2 GbE interfaces (intel e1000). The switches/host are
> >located in diff
On Monday 30 July 2007 16:10, Ralf Gross wrote:
>
> My goal is to increase the bandwidth for a single tcp session between
> the two hosts for a backup job (per packet round robin?), not for
> multiple connections between many hosts. I know that I won't get 2 x
> 115Mb/s because of packet reordering
On 07/30/07 09:10, Ralf Gross wrote:
I'm trying to increase the bandwidth between two hosts (backup). Both
hosts are in the same /24 subnet and each of them is connected to a
Cisco switch by 2 GbE interfaces (intel e1000). The switches/host are
located in different building which are connected
On 07/30/07 09:15, Laurence vd Krieken wrote:
I am working on a test-project at the moment, in witch I want to
actually bundle ('trunk') some connections. In the LARTC-manual I
found the chapter about TEQL (see chapter 10). The situation in that
example is too link 2 networks. I need to link a
Hi Roman, try a patch from a distributor, e.g. Debian
(http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/t/tcng/tcng_10b-1.diff.gz).
Andreas
Roman Ledovskiy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Trying to compile tcng on 64bit server (centos-5 64bit), I'm getting:
> --
> cc -g -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-p
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 02:58:00PM +0100, Jonathan Gazeley wrote:
[...]
> 137.222.235.125
> RTNETLINK answers: No such file or directory
> RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
> We have an error talking to the kernel
> RTNETLINK answers: No such file or directory
> RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argumen
Hi,
I'm trying to increase the bandwidth between two hosts (backup). Both
hosts are in the same /24 subnet and each of them is connected to
a Cisco switch by 2 GbE interfaces (intel e1000). The switches/host
are located in different building which are connected by 3 x GbE.
building A
Dear List,
Another noob question today!
I've been using iproute2 for a long time now to manage bandwidth and
directing traffic over multiple interfaces based on source routing.
I am working on a test-project at the moment, in witch I want to
actually bundle ('trunk') some connections. In the LAR
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what I use, so long as I get
the result - I just need to have each user alloted a certain upload and
download speed. Nothing too fancy.
I tried switching to HTB. I amended my commands but I don't know if my
kernel supports it. I've got CentOS 5.0 with
At 2007-07-30 14:36:03 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 137.222.235.125
> Error: Qdisc "tbf" is classless.
> Error: Qdisc "tbf" is classless.
One of these is from the $LAN line, and one from the $WAN one, right?
> Any ideas what's broken? I'm not so hot on classful queueing
> disciplines!
It'
Eck, how embarrassing. Thanks for that - now fixed. I still get errors
though:
137.222.235.125
Error: Qdisc "tbf" is classless.
Error: Qdisc "tbf" is classless.
Any ideas what's broken? I'm not so hot on classful queueing disciplines!
Cheers,
Jonathan
Jonathan Gazele
At 2007-07-30 14:16:22 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't really understand that error - especially as the identical
> code does work for the download limits.
I think it's only that you define $WAN and later use $wAN, so tc thinks
it's missing an argument, and gets confused.
-- ams
_
Hi Abhijit,
Thanks a lot for your advice - I didn't realise that the source IP was
re-written before the traffic was shaped.
I have attached the script I wrote. As I said before, the download limit
does successfully work and each client (I am using 2 test clients) gets
512kbit each. However
Hello Jonathan.
At 2007-07-30 12:40:00 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So far I have managed to get the download limits working. However I
> need to shape on both interfaces so I recycled the same code to apply
> to uploads but it didn't work and I can't figure out why
That's not really enoug
Hi everyone,
I'm new to tc but I need to use it to set up shaping on a new NAT box.
In short:
Each user must have their upload limited to 128kbit and downlink limited
to 256kbit.
Global bandwidth to be limited to 100Mbit
Interactive packets to have higher priority
200+ users, so need to matc
hello Nikolay Kichukov,
Thank you for your help, I have fixed the problem now.
I'm not using the tc in a computer, I port the tc to a embedded
system, a router runing linux, and I want to control the traffic on
LAN, and the WAN is connnect to the Internet by PPPoE.
Today I debugged in the linux
19 matches
Mail list logo
