> On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 19:57 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote: >> On Oct 13, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: >> > On Oct 13, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: >> >> On Oct 13, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Simon Matter wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Tom, did you test with complex TC or simple TC? >> >>> I've just tested adding burst on one of the existing EL4 systems and >> it >> >>> indeed increases the download speed to almost full speed. However, >> the >> >>> same config on the EL6 box just doesn't work at all even with the >> latest >> >>> official RHEL6.1 kernel. >> >> >> >> I tested using Simple TC. >> >> >> > As far as I know, IN-BANDWIDTH handling is identical in Internal and >> Simple. >> > >> I just configured my Centos6 box with complex TC and it worked just the >> same. >> > > Grasping at straws, here is the Tc.pm that I'm releasing in 4.4.25 Beta > 2. While my testing shows that it makes IN-BANDWIDTH enforcement more > accurate, I am not hopeful that it will help your issue.
Thanks Tom, I appreciate your help! I have tried the whole thing as you did with KVM - and of course it worked as it did for you. Finally, before giving up, I went to the box, put in a simple USB ethenet adapter, and voilà - it works perfec :) That means to me it must be some of the offloading stuff. I tried the settings from the shorewall FAQ but without success, so I have to check again, I either did something wrong in the tests or my adapter needs other settings. I'll come back with more infos. Regards, Simon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
