> The attached patch omits the 'quantum' specification when adding an SFQ qdisc > subordinate to an HFSC class. > Before I delve in and apply this patch I wanted to know whether increasing the umax value (deliberately or not) is a good thing or a bad thing with the configuration I have as it was my understanding that umax is (usually) set to the MTU value on the device to which this flow relates, which, evidently, isn't the case with what I have seen so far, so there must be a reason as to why that is.
>> class hfsc a:17 parent a:13 leaf 103: sc m1 0bit d 74.0ms m2 40000bit ul >> m1 0bit d 0us m2 320000bit <-- Why 74ms when I specified 375ms? Where >> does that come from (see my calculations on the hfsc thread for details)? >> > > In my post that you are responding to, I showed you how to look at the > generated script to see the 'tc add class' commands that Shorewall is > generating. If that command shows '74ms' then I will try to understand why > that is happening. But I suspect that it shows 375, which means that you will > need to ask the HFSC developers. > I'll check that later this evening and will query the dev list if it turns out that tc is setting these on its own account ignoring what I have specified via shorewall. > Don't know. I used HFSC long enough to convince myself that the Shorewall > HFSC support was working. I personally use nothing but the simple TC. > It looks as though there is another reason to contact the dev list then! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
