Hi everybody!
I''ve been trying with htb and tc filter. It seemed to work fine, but
after testing with ethloop I''ve realized that traffic is not being
distributed through the leaves as I thought. When sending packets to
1:10 and 1:11 at the same time, there''s no bandwidth sharing.
There''s no
traffic through 1:11 until traffic through 1:10 has finished. Though
I''ve tried assigning different prio''s, 1:10 always gets more
bandwidth...
Here''s the script that reproduces this behaviour:
tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb default 12 r2q 10
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 600kbit ceil
600kbit
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb rate 200kbit ceil
600kbit
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:11 htb rate 200kbit ceil
600kbit
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:12 htb rate 200kbit ceil
600kbit
tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:10 handle 20: sfq perturb 10
tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:11 handle 21: sfq perturb 10
tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:12 handle 22: sfq perturb 10
tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1: u32 match ip sport 53
0xffff flowid 1:10
tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1: u32 match ip src 1.2.3.4
match ip sport 80 0xffff flowid 1:11
Thanks in advance!
Albert
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
On Monday 16 June 2003 19:07, Albert Martorell wrote:> Hi everybody! > > I''ve been trying with htb and tc filter. It seemed to work fine, but > after testing with ethloop I''ve realized that traffic is not being > distributed through the leaves as I thought. When sending packets to > 1:10 and 1:11 at the same time, there''s no bandwidth sharing. There''s no > traffic through 1:11 until traffic through 1:10 has finished. Though > I''ve tried assigning different prio''s, 1:10 always gets more > bandwidth...I also did some test and used ethloop But I had good restults. You can find more info on http://www.docum.org/stef.coene/qos/tests/htb/parent/> Here''s the script that reproduces this behaviour: > > tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb default 12 r2q 10 > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 600kbit ceil > 600kbit > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb rate 200kbit ceil > 600kbit > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:11 htb rate 200kbit ceil > 600kbit > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:12 htb rate 200kbit ceil > 600kbit > tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:10 handle 20: sfq perturb 10 > tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:11 handle 21: sfq perturb 10 > tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:12 handle 22: sfq perturb 10 > > tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1: u32 match ip sport 53 > 0xffff flowid 1:10 > tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1: u32 match ip src 1.2.3.4 > match ip sport 80 0xffff flowid 1:11I did my tests with ethloop on lo and you used eth0. Do you have a loopback connecter installed on eth0? Stef -- stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.oftc.net _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
We noted this problem that the first subclass got all the extra bandwidth when the subclasses should be sharing the extra bandwidth equally. We were able to get it working better by lowering the quantum to 1600. I think what is happening with a larger quantum is that the first subclass is getting all the extra bandwidth in one quantum. Orlie On Monday 2003.06.16 10:07 Albert Martorell wrote:> Hi everybody! > > I''ve been trying with htb and tc filter. It seemed to work fine, but > after testing with ethloop I''ve realized that traffic is not being > distributed through the leaves as I thought. When sending packets to > 1:10 and 1:11 at the same time, there''s no bandwidth sharing. There''s no > traffic through 1:11 until traffic through 1:10 has finished. Though > I''ve tried assigning different prio''s, 1:10 always gets more > bandwidth... > > Here''s the script that reproduces this behaviour: > > tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb default 12 r2q 10 > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 600kbit ceil > 600kbit > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb rate 200kbit ceil > 600kbit > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:11 htb rate 200kbit ceil > 600kbit > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:12 htb rate 200kbit ceil > 600kbit > tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:10 handle 20: sfq perturb 10 > tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:11 handle 21: sfq perturb 10 > tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:12 handle 22: sfq perturb 10 > > tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1: u32 match ip sport 53 > 0xffff flowid 1:10 > tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1: u32 match ip src 1.2.3.4 > match ip sport 80 0xffff flowid 1:11 > > > Thanks in advance! > > Albert > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ >_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Stef Coene wrote:> On Monday 16 June 2003 19:07, Albert Martorell wrote: > > Hi everybody! > > > > I''ve been trying with htb and tc filter. It seemed to work fine, but > > after testing with ethloop I''ve realized that traffic is not being > > distributed through the leaves as I thought. When sending packets to > > 1:10 and 1:11 at the same time, there''s no bandwidth sharing. There''s no > > traffic through 1:11 until traffic through 1:10 has finished. Though > > I''ve tried assigning different prio''s, 1:10 always gets more > > bandwidth... > I also did some test and used ethloop But I had good restults. You can find > more info on > http://www.docum.org/stef.coene/qos/tests/htb/parent/Thanks, I''ll take a look.> > > > Here''s the script that reproduces this behaviour: > > > > tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb default 12 r2q 10 > > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 600kbit ceil > > 600kbit > > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb rate 200kbit ceil > > 600kbit > > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:11 htb rate 200kbit ceil > > 600kbit > > tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:12 htb rate 200kbit ceil > > 600kbit > > tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:10 handle 20: sfq perturb 10 > > tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:11 handle 21: sfq perturb 10 > > tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:12 handle 22: sfq perturb 10 > > > > tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1: u32 match ip sport 53 > > 0xffff flowid 1:10 > > tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1: u32 match ip src 1.2.3.4 > > match ip sport 80 0xffff flowid 1:11 > I did my tests with ethloop on lo and you used eth0. Do you have a loopback > connecter installed on eth0?I see my first mistake has been testing directly on ethernet devices without a loopback connector... Anyway I''ve tried with ethloop on lo and the results are the same. Thx. Albert _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
On Tuesday 17 June 2003 11:13, Albert Martorell wrote:> I see my first mistake has been testing directly on ethernet devices > without a loopback connector... Anyway I''ve tried with ethloop on lo and > the results are the same.Did you execute ifconfig lo mtu 1500 ? Stef -- stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.oftc.net _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Stef Coene wrote:> On Tuesday 17 June 2003 11:13, Albert Martorell wrote: > > I see my first mistake has been testing directly on ethernet devices > > without a loopback connector... Anyway I''ve tried with ethloop on lo and > > the results are the same. > Did you execute > ifconfig lo mtu 1500 > ? >Yes I did. I''ve seen that for low rates in ethloop it behaves as expected. When I increase rates to 50% of ceil rate, traffic only goes through the first leaf class. I''ve tried lowering the quantum, as suggested by Orlie Brewer, but it has not worked for me.. Albert _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
On Tuesday 17 June 2003 17:43, Albert Martorell wrote:> Stef Coene wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 June 2003 11:13, Albert Martorell wrote: > > > I see my first mistake has been testing directly on ethernet devices > > > without a loopback connector... Anyway I''ve tried with ethloop on lo > > > and the results are the same. > > > > Did you execute > > ifconfig lo mtu 1500 > > ? > > Yes I did. I''ve seen that for low rates in ethloop it behaves as expected. > When I increase rates to 50% of ceil rate, traffic only goes through the > first leaf class. I''ve tried lowering the quantum, as suggested by Orlie > Brewer, but it has not worked for me..Can send me the scripts and ethloop commands you use? So I can try it myself. Stef -- stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.oftc.net _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
When I was going to send you my scripts I discovered where the mistake was. In
ethloop ''k'' rates are kbps instead of kbits, so I was
supplying very high rates...
I''m sorry for this. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help.
Albert
Stef Coene wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 June 2003 17:43, Albert Martorell wrote:
> > Stef Coene wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 17 June 2003 11:13, Albert Martorell wrote:
> > > > I see my first mistake has been testing directly on ethernet
devices
> > > > without a loopback connector... Anyway I''ve tried
with ethloop on lo
> > > > and the results are the same.
> > >
> > > Did you execute
> > > ifconfig lo mtu 1500
> > > ?
> >
> > Yes I did. I''ve seen that for low rates in ethloop it behaves
as expected.
> > When I increase rates to 50% of ceil rate, traffic only goes through
the
> > first leaf class. I''ve tried lowering the quantum, as
suggested by Orlie
> > Brewer, but it has not worked for me..
> Can send me the scripts and ethloop commands you use? So I can try it
myself.
>
> Stef
>
> --
>
> stef.coene@docum.org
> "Using Linux as bandwidth manager"
> http://www.docum.org/
> #lartc @ irc.oftc.net
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/