Re: [LARTC] imq+htb does no traffic controll

2002-03-26 Thread Julián Muñoz
> > > PS: is it possible, that the hole QoS-Part of my 2.2.17 Kernel is > > > bugy? On an other kernel-tree i applyed the ds-patch to get ingress > > > qdisc support. It commpiles fine and the module loads with no errors, > > > but a "tc qdisc add dev ppp0 ingress ..." gives no such device error!

Re: [LARTC] imq+htb does no traffic controll

2002-03-26 Thread Martin Devera
> > to take a look to the classes 1:31 1:32 and 1:33. > > I could see that the filters does there job and every connection > > is going to the right class. > > I´ve started a download of a kernel image on a pay-system and it > > has ca 80kb/s. Than i´ve stopped that download and started the same

Re: [LARTC] imq+htb does no traffic controll

2002-03-26 Thread Mario Wolff
Am Montag, 25 März 2002 schrieb Mario Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > I do imq+htb traffic controll but it does not regulate anything. > What i´ve checked: the imq-interface is up > to take a look to the classes 1:31 1:32 and 1:33. > I could see that the filters does there job and every connection

Re: [LARTC] imq+htb does no traffic controll

2002-03-25 Thread Martin Devera
> > > -how many prios are allowed? First i had prio 10, 20 and 30 on the > > 4 prios (0-3). First it should be enough, at second: each > > new prio makes htb slower and more memory demanding > > i dont need more than that, but i tought the prio backside would > be build at runtime and so i dec

Re: [LARTC] imq+htb does no traffic controll

2002-03-25 Thread Martin Devera
> > > -how many prios are allowed? First i had prio 10, 20 and 30 on the > > > > 4 prios (0-3). First it should be enough, at second: each > > new prio makes htb slower and more memory demanding > > Uh, its good to know about it. Does this happen allready if you compile htb for > 8 prios (but onl

Re: [LARTC] imq+htb does no traffic controll

2002-03-25 Thread Mario Wolff
Hello devik, Am Montag, 25 März 2002 schrieben Sie: > > #build a root-queue on the imq > > tc qdisc add dev imq root handle 1: htb default 1 > did you ifconfig imq up !? Yes, for sure. If the interface were down, the filters could not put the traffic to the build classes. > > -how to build a

Re: [LARTC] imq+htb does no traffic controll

2002-03-25 Thread Nils Lichtenfeld
Hello Martin! > > -how many prios are allowed? First i had prio 10, 20 and 30 on the > > 4 prios (0-3). First it should be enough, at second: each > new prio makes htb slower and more memory demanding Uh, its good to know about it. Does this happen allready if you compile htb for 8 prios (but on

Re: [LARTC] imq+htb does no traffic controll

2002-03-25 Thread Martin Devera
> #build a root-queue on the imq > tc qdisc add dev imq root handle 1: htb default 1 did you ifconfig imq up !? > My Questions: > -how to build a "dont touch" class? there is one in htb X:0 (like 1:0). Just use default 0 or use flow 1:0 in filters > -what´s wrong on the thinks i´ve did? is

[LARTC] imq+htb does no traffic controll

2002-03-25 Thread Mario Wolff
Hello list! What´s the Problem: I do imq+htb traffic controll but it does not regulate anything. What i have: -lfs-system with 2.2.17 vanilla-kernel with imq and htb patch -ppp0 adsl 768/128kbps connection via pppoe (dynamic IP) -eth0 10Mbit connection to adsl-modem (no ip) -eth1 100Mbit connecti