[LARTC] SQUID + tc problems

2004-03-16 Thread Gerardo Arceri
I'm trying to limit bandwidth consumption of sites hosted behind a squid working as a reverse transparent proxy (squid 2.5.3 with Patrick McHardy tcp_outgoing_priority patch) but with traffic levels for a given site of 1Mbps, only about 1% of the traffic shows up in a tc -s -d. Anyone has exp

Re: [LARTC] squid + tc

2002-05-23 Thread Patrick McHardy
Martin Devera wrote: >>Martin Devera wrote: >> On Wednesday 22 May 2002 10:43, you wrote: >I've seen patch to squid somewhere. The trick is to encode original >requester information into new request packets. It can go into >"priority" field - it is 32bit and is userspace-

Re: [LARTC] squid + tc

2002-05-22 Thread Martin Devera
> Martin Devera wrote: > >>On Wednesday 22 May 2002 10:43, you wrote: > >> > >>>I've seen patch to squid somewhere. The trick is to encode original > >>>requester information into new request packets. It can go into > >>>"priority" field - it is 32bit and is userspace-settable. > > In Squid 2.5 yo

Re: [LARTC] squid + tc

2002-05-22 Thread Patrick McHardy
Martin Devera wrote: >>On Wednesday 22 May 2002 10:43, you wrote: >> >>>I've seen patch to squid somewhere. The trick is to encode original >>>requester information into new request packets. It can go into >>>"priority" field - it is 32bit and is userspace-settable. In Squid 2.5 you have the poss

Re: [LARTC] squid + tc

2002-05-22 Thread Martin Devera
> On Wednesday 22 May 2002 10:43, you wrote: > > I've seen patch to squid somewhere. The trick is to encode original > > requester information into new request packets. It can go into > > "priority" field - it is 32bit and is userspace-settable. > > That sounds exactly like the solution I've been

Re: [LARTC] squid + tc

2002-05-22 Thread Patrick McHardy
Andreas Lehrbaum wrote: > On Wednesday 22 May 2002 10:43, you wrote: > >>I've seen patch to squid somewhere. The trick is to encode original >>requester information into new request packets. It can go into >>"priority" field - it is 32bit and is userspace-settable. > > > That sounds exactly lik

Re: [LARTC] squid + tc

2002-05-22 Thread Andreas Lehrbaum
On Wednesday 22 May 2002 10:43, you wrote: > I've seen patch to squid somewhere. The trick is to encode original > requester information into new request packets. It can go into > "priority" field - it is 32bit and is userspace-settable. That sounds exactly like the solution I've been looking for

Re: [LARTC] squid + tc

2002-05-22 Thread Martin Devera
uot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Gavin White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:27 AM > Subject: Re: [LARTC] squid + tc > > > On Wednesday 22 May 2002 09:00, Gavin White wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I h

Re: [LARTC] squid + tc

2002-05-22 Thread Gavin White
MAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [LARTC] squid + tc On Wednesday 22 May 2002 09:00, Gavin White wrote: > Hello, > > I have some htb rules set up to govern download speeds through a linux box, > depending on the IP address of the destination machine.

Re: [LARTC] squid + tc

2002-05-22 Thread Stef Coene
On Wednesday 22 May 2002 09:00, Gavin White wrote: > Hello, > > I have some htb rules set up to govern download speeds through a linux box, > depending on the IP address of the destination machine. > > My problem is that when the end users choose to use my squid cache, which > sits before the htb

[LARTC] squid + tc

2002-05-21 Thread Gavin White
Hello, I have some htb rules set up to govern download speeds through a linux box, depending on the IP address of the destination machine. My problem is that when the end users choose to use my squid cache, which sits before the htb machine (and has to be there), the htb machine thinks the traff