>> >> WHEN i send packets from 10.1.1.1 at rate frome 12mbit to 50mbit BY >> using >> SMARTBIT 600, the rate of class 10:100 is always 12Mbits. >> >> >I suppose it's the SMATRBIT 600 that says it sends 12bits. >> >WHAT if you change 12mbit to 15mbit. WHAT if you send more then 20Mbit. >> >> WHAT >> >> >if you change 12mbit to a lower value (1mbit). >> >CAN you can do that and post the results? >> >I don't think there is an error in your setup. >> >> WHEN i change 12mbit to 15mbit and send packets at rate >> 15mbit,20mbit,30mbit,50mbit, the rate of class 10:100 is always 15mbits. >> WHEN i change 12mbit to 30mbit and send packets at rate >> 30mbit,40mbit,50mbit, the rate of class 10:100 is always 30mbits. >> WHEN i change 12mbit to a lower value (1mbit) and send packets at rate >> 1mbit,2mbit,10mbit,20mbit, the rate of class 10:100 is always 1mbits. >The ceil parameter always worked for me. What version of tc/htb/kernel are >you using? TC from htb3.6-020525.zip kernel 2.2.21 and patch ds9-2.2.21-2.diff rbtree-2.2.21-1.diff ds9-htb3-2.2.21-1.diff from http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ds9/
> TC from htb3.6-020525.zip > kernel 2.2.21 and patch ds9-2.2.21-2.diff rbtree-2.2.21-1.diff > ds9-htb3-2.2.21-1.diff > from http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ds9/ HTB 3.6 + kernel 2.4.19 are working for me. You are using a backport of = htb=20 from 2.4 to 2.2. Maybe they made an error when they backported htb. Che= ck=20 it out with the maintainer (not Devik, but the one who created the files = you=20 us). Stef --=20 stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.oftc.net
Hello, On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 lihpc@Legend.com wrote: > >The ceil parameter always worked for me. What version of tc/htb/kernel > are > >you using? > > TC from htb3.6-020525.zip > kernel 2.2.21 and patch ds9-2.2.21-2.diff rbtree-2.2.21-1.diff > ds9-htb3-2.2.21-1.diff > from http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ds9/ I just upgraded to HTB 3.7 from 2.4.20pre11: ds9-htb3-2.2.21-2.diff I can't comment the HTB behavior, my tests with HTB were very simple. In production I'm using this backport only for CBQ, U32, SFQ, Ingress, policers. I have never observed deviations from the 2.4 behavior. It would be good if you can compare the same settings on 2.4.20pre. Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Hello, On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 lihpc@Legend.com wrote: Ops, is that correct?: > ipchains -A fw -s 0.0.0.0 -d 0.0.0.0 -j ACCEPT it should be ipchains -A fw -s 0.0.0.0/0 -d 0.0.0.0/0 -j ACCEPT Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>