Iam using HTB+IMQ on an Ethernet bridge and
tc for statistics reporting.
I am finding that
tcreportedrateisabout 5-10% less than that reported by
IPTraf for the same traffic.
Has anyone observed this before? Which is more
accurate?
Rajesh
,
Rajesh
Hey pal, What about the overhead part to create the display
that flows betweenthe internet gateway(Machine you are monitoring) and
your machine???.TrevorOn Mon, 2003-07-14 at 14:35, Rajesh
Srivastava wrote: I am using HTB+IMQ on an Ethernet bridge and tc for
statistics reporting. I am
I am successfully running ingress (IMQ) and egress (HTB) shaping on a
bridge.
Is there any way to combine and share the bandwidth between ingress and
egress?
Example:
I have set up www service for egress at 128 KB and ingress at 256 KB. The
shaping on them works fine separately. However, I want
traffic passes. Thus shaping
on
IMQ will enable shaping total traffic and not incoming and outgoing
separately.
---
On Wednesday June 25 2003 02:37 pm, Rajesh Srivastava wrote:
I am successfully running ingress (IMQ) and egress (HTB) shaping on a
bridge.
Is there any way to combine and share
Stef,
tc -s -d class show dev eth0 parent :
gives no output.
I am using the latest tc which has been download and built with the 2.4.20
kernel includes.
Thanks,
Rajesh
On Friday 06 June 2003 16:39, Rajesh Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to do both ingress and egress bandwidth
Hi,Fw
marking using IP Tables does not work on an Ethernet bridge. Is itpossible
to set up the mark using iptables so that the packet can bedirectly routed
to a predefined class using a mark value?The advantage of this would be
the one can use conntrack etc. to trackconnections and forward
Hi,
Fw marking using IP Tables does not work on an
Ethernet bridge. Is it possible to set up the mark using iptables so that the
packet can be directly routed toa predefinedclass using a mark
value?
The advantage of this would be the one can use
conntrack etc. to trackconnections and
