Hello, I''ve been using cbq''s "weight" parameter to influence distribution of excess bandwidth among sibling classes. Does htb offer something similar? So far I think that - you either use priorities - then excess bandwidth is offered to higher priority classes first, the rest (if any) is distributed among lower priority classes - or you don''t use priorities - then excess bandwidth is distributed according to ratios of classes'' rates Am I right? Is there another way to influence distribution of excess bandwidth among siblings? E.g. is it possible to say that class A will acquire excess bw say 4 times faster than class B, even though class A''s rate is just half of class B''s rate? Thanks, pvl
On Fri, Jan 04, 1980 at 12:36:15AM +0100, Stef Coene wrote:> On Friday 29 March 2002 15:21, Pavel Mores wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I''ve been using cbq''s "weight" parameter to influence distribution of > > excess bandwidth among sibling classes. Does htb offer something > > similar? > > So far I think that > > - you either use priorities - then excess bandwidth is offered to higher > > priority classes first, the rest (if any) is distributed among lower > > priority classes > > - or you don''t use priorities - then excess bandwidth is distributed > > according to ratios of classes'' rates > > > > Am I right? Is there another way to influence distribution of excess > > bandwidth among siblings? E.g. is it possible to say that class A will > > acquire excess bw say 4 times faster than class B, even though class A''s > > rate is just half of class B''s rate? > Nop, that''s not possble.Thanks for your answer. I suppose there are no plans to implement such a functionality at this time? pvl
On Tuesday 02 April 2002 11:24, Pavel Mores wrote:> On Fri, Jan 04, 1980 at 12:36:15AM +0100, Stef Coene wrote: > > On Friday 29 March 2002 15:21, Pavel Mores wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I''ve been using cbq''s "weight" parameter to influence distribution of > > > excess bandwidth among sibling classes. Does htb offer something > > > similar? > > > So far I think that > > > - you either use priorities - then excess bandwidth is offered to > > > higher priority classes first, the rest (if any) is distributed among > > > lower priority classes > > > - or you don''t use priorities - then excess bandwidth is distributed > > > according to ratios of classes'' rates > > > > > > Am I right? Is there another way to influence distribution of excess > > > bandwidth among siblings? E.g. is it possible to say that class A will > > > acquire excess bw say 4 times faster than class B, even though class > > > A''s rate is just half of class B''s rate? > > > > Nop, that''s not possble. > > Thanks for your answer. I suppose there are no plans to implement such a > functionality at this time?Devik? Stef -- stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.openprojects.net
> > > > Am I right? Is there another way to influence distribution of excess > > > > bandwidth among siblings? E.g. is it possible to say that class A will > > > > acquire excess bw say 4 times faster than class B, even though class > > > > A''s rate is just half of class B''s rate? > > > > > > Nop, that''s not possble. > > > > Thanks for your answer. I suppose there are no plans to implement such a > > functionality at this time? > Devik?no there are not. While it is rather simple I can''t find meaningfull application of it. Why would someone need it ? devik
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 11:42:28AM +0200, Martin Devera wrote:> > > > > Am I right? Is there another way to influence distribution of excess > > > > > bandwidth among siblings? E.g. is it possible to say that class A will > > > > > acquire excess bw say 4 times faster than class B, even though class > > > > > A''s rate is just half of class B''s rate? > > > > > > > > Nop, that''s not possble. > > > > > > Thanks for your answer. I suppose there are no plans to implement such a > > > functionality at this time? > > Devik? > > no there are not. While it is rather simple I can''t find > meaningfull application of it. Why would someone need it ?Well, suits might need it. It might be a selling point. I don''t feel that rate of a class and its access to excess bandwidth are fundamentally tied in any way. I think that these parameters are independent, just as a class'' rate and ceil are independent of each other. It makes sense to sell a service with ceil=4*rate or ceil=100*rate (although that might be a little weird ;-) and it makes sense to sell ceil=1.00*rate. The same holds for rate and participation on excess bandwidth. E.g. you might have a customer agency which needs say 256 kbps for its headquarters and 64 kbps for its factory. They pay for 512 kbps which means that they buy 512-256-64=192 kbps of "excess" bw available to both sites on demand. Well, it makes sense to me that they would be worried about the "headquarters" class draining the other class in case both classes have demand. They might want to say "We buy lower rate for our factory because Internet access is rarely needed there. But *when* it *is* needed we want to let the factory take at least 1/2 of the "excess" bw we buy even if headquarters demand excess bw too. We already buy 256 kbps for headquarters so it makes little sense to feed them even more bandwidth and deny service to the factory class in the process.". There might be a way to do this with what we already have. But how? Clearly, headquarters'' HTB "rate" parameter would have to be 256 kbps, the other class would have rate of 64 kbps. What next? You don''t want to set headquarters'' ceil to 256+192/2 and factory''s ceil to 64+192/2 because that would mean that even if one of the classes doesn''t demand bw the other is not able to use full 512 kbps and 192/2 kbps is wasted. If you assign a better priority to the factory they you enable it to consume whole 192 kbps of excess bw thus possibly draining headquarters (I mean, limiting hq to its rate) which might not be what you want either. There are numerous other scenarios that would benefit from an independent control of distribution of excess bw between siblings. You could sell an aggregated service where you throw a couple of folks together with some excess bw into the same class and even though each of them buys different rate you might want to guarrantee equal access to the excess bw. You might want to make the distribution of excess bw dependent on time ("if there''s a congestion, you guys will get *most* (sic - not *whole*) of the bw during the business hours and those other guys will win in the evening and night") etc. etc. Is there a way to achieve these things now? pvl
> E.g. you might have a customer agency which needs say 256 kbps for its > headquarters and 64 kbps for its factory. They pay for 512 kbps which > means that they buy 512-256-64=192 kbps of "excess" bw available to both > sites on demand. Well, it makes sense to me that they would be worried > about the "headquarters" class draining the other class in case both > classes have demand. They might want to say "We buy lower rate for our > factory because Internet access is rarely needed there. But *when* it > *is* needed we want to let the factory take at least 1/2 of the "excess" > bw we buy even if headquarters demand excess bw too. We already buy 256well, you are right. However you should take into account that even in cbq the weight is not precise argument. It influences excess distribution but you will see some discrepancies. The idea is nice - only implementation is a bit more complex ;) As I''m working on new version I''ll try to do it - if it will not slow things down. It is because with assmption that "weight" is proportional to rate we can make some algorithms faster ... We will see ;) devik
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 03:34:08PM +0200, Martin Devera wrote:> > E.g. you might have a customer agency which needs say 256 kbps for its > > headquarters and 64 kbps for its factory. They pay for 512 kbps which > > means that they buy 512-256-64=192 kbps of "excess" bw available to both > > sites on demand. Well, it makes sense to me that they would be worried > > about the "headquarters" class draining the other class in case both > > classes have demand. They might want to say "We buy lower rate for our > > factory because Internet access is rarely needed there. But *when* it > > *is* needed we want to let the factory take at least 1/2 of the "excess" > > bw we buy even if headquarters demand excess bw too. We already buy 256 > > well, you are right. However you should take into account that > even in cbq the weight is not precise argument. It influences > excess distribution but you will see some discrepancies.Yes - this and other CBQ problems are the very reasons I''m looking into alternatives. :-) CBQ''s "weight" parameter semantics is rather opaque and it is difficult to predict how a given weight value will influence excess bw distribution. I also suspect that CBQ''s weight doesn''t give me complete independence on rate ratios although I''m not sure here (yet).> As I''m working on new version I''ll try to do it - if it will not > slow things down. > It is because with assmption that "weight" is proportional to rate > we can make some algorithms faster ... > We will see ;)Then I hope it will be possible to implement it in such a manner that it wouldn''t hurt those who don''t use it. Anyway, thanks a lot. :-) pvl
On Friday 29 March 2002 15:21, Pavel Mores wrote:> Hello, > > I''ve been using cbq''s "weight" parameter to influence distribution of > excess bandwidth among sibling classes. Does htb offer something > similar? > So far I think that > - you either use priorities - then excess bandwidth is offered to higher > priority classes first, the rest (if any) is distributed among lower > priority classes > - or you don''t use priorities - then excess bandwidth is distributed > according to ratios of classes'' rates > > Am I right? Is there another way to influence distribution of excess > bandwidth among siblings? E.g. is it possible to say that class A will > acquire excess bw say 4 times faster than class B, even though class A''s > rate is just half of class B''s rate?Nop, that''s not possble. Stef -- stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.openprojects.net