Hi Jason, right now I don''t think anybody can assure stability on IMQ. My experience is that IMQ works fine in my enviroment that is a 2.4.23 PPPoE concentrator with ~70 users... It is up and running for more then a month without any problems. What I would suggest you is to make some stability tests in a lab before putting it into production... What kernel version will you use? It seens that 2.4.23 is the best bet for now. IMQ has being unmaintained but there is a groups of people trying to get it on its way again. You can reach the brand new group at: http://www.linuximq.net ... There is not much new things yet, the work is just starting, but you, and everybody else, is more then welcome to join us there and share your results and needs. tks and good luck Andre Correa Jason Tackaberry wrote:> Hi, > > There have been a number of threads lately discussing IMQ''s stability > (or lack thereof). I am about to roll out a new router and I quite > badly need IMQ''s functionality. This is a production environment, > though, and random panics of course aren''t acceptable. > > My question is are there any circumstances under which IMQ is _stable_? > The router will have about 6 interfaces, 2 of which will be to > (separate) upstream ISPs. The router must be able to manage the > bandwidth fairly between the remaining four interfaces, so I''ll need > IMQ. Perhaps there is another solution? > > Thanks, > Jason. >_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Hi, There have been a number of threads lately discussing IMQ''s stability (or lack thereof). I am about to roll out a new router and I quite badly need IMQ''s functionality. This is a production environment, though, and random panics of course aren''t acceptable. My question is are there any circumstances under which IMQ is _stable_? The router will have about 6 interfaces, 2 of which will be to (separate) upstream ISPs. The router must be able to manage the bandwidth fairly between the remaining four interfaces, so I''ll need IMQ. Perhaps there is another solution? Thanks, Jason. -- Jason Tackaberry :: tack@auc.ca :: 705-949-2301 x330 Academic Computing Support Specialist Information Technology Services Algoma University College :: www.auc.ca _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
HI, I have a Off topic question about this. Have you enabled a PPPoE Server under Linux ? Can you tell me a URL or how-to about this ? thank you ! best regards andres -> -----Mensaje original----- -> De: lartc-admin@mailman.ds9a.nl [mailto:lartc-admin@mailman.ds9a.nl]En -> nombre de Andre Correa -> Enviado el: Viernes, 06 de Febrero de 2004 11:07 a.m. -> Para: Jason Tackaberry -> CC: lartc -> Asunto: Re: [LARTC] Questions about IMQ''s stability -> -> -> -> Hi Jason, right now I don''t think anybody can assure stability on IMQ. -> My experience is that IMQ works fine in my enviroment that is a 2.4.23 -> PPPoE concentrator with ~70 users... It is up and running for more then -> a month without any problems. -> -> What I would suggest you is to make some stability tests in a lab before -> putting it into production... -> -> What kernel version will you use? It seens that 2.4.23 is the best bet -> for now. -> -> IMQ has being unmaintained but there is a groups of people trying to get -> it on its way again. You can reach the brand new group at: -> http://www.linuximq.net ... There is not much new things yet, the work -> is just starting, but you, and everybody else, is more then welcome to -> join us there and share your results and needs. -> -> tks and good luck -> -> Andre Correa -> -> -> -> -> Jason Tackaberry wrote: -> > Hi, -> > -> > There have been a number of threads lately discussing IMQ''s stability -> > (or lack thereof). I am about to roll out a new router and I quite -> > badly need IMQ''s functionality. This is a production environment, -> > though, and random panics of course aren''t acceptable. -> > -> > My question is are there any circumstances under which IMQ is -> _stable_? -> > The router will have about 6 interfaces, 2 of which will be to -> > (separate) upstream ISPs. The router must be able to manage the -> > bandwidth fairly between the remaining four interfaces, so I''ll need -> > IMQ. Perhaps there is another solution? -> > -> > Thanks, -> > Jason. -> > -> -> _______________________________________________ -> 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/
Sorry, but I have to disagree... We''ve discussing this issue at linuximq list and it is not obvious that the postrouting hook is the culprit for all the reported problems. I''ve being using postrouting for long with no side effects, no crashs, no oops. More investigation on it is needed. What is a known issue is that one should not try to touch localy generated traffic with IMQ. This is known to cause problems, so you better not try it. Andre Roy wrote:> IMQ is quite stable when used on ingress only > just dont touch postrouting and it will be ok > you can use either old version, either my new one > which does not need to patch kernel and iptables > you can find it at http://pupa.da.ru/imq/ > (but it may be incompatible with some conntrack modules) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andre Correa" <andre.correa@pobox.com> > To: "Jason Tackaberry" <tack@auc.ca> > Cc: "lartc" <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl> > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 4:06 PM > Subject: Re: [LARTC] Questions about IMQ''s stability > > > >>Hi Jason, right now I don''t think anybody can assure stability on IMQ. >>My experience is that IMQ works fine in my enviroment that is a 2.4.23 >>PPPoE concentrator with ~70 users... It is up and running for more then >>a month without any problems. >> >>What I would suggest you is to make some stability tests in a lab before >>putting it into production... >> >>What kernel version will you use? It seens that 2.4.23 is the best bet >>for now. >> >>IMQ has being unmaintained but there is a groups of people trying to get >>it on its way again. You can reach the brand new group at: >>http://www.linuximq.net ... There is >>not much new things yet, the work >>is just starting, but you, and everybody else, is more then welcome to >>join us there and share your results and needs. >> >>tks and good luck >> >>Andre Correa >> >> >> >> >>Jason Tackaberry wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>There have been a number of threads lately discussing IMQ''s >> >>stability >> >>>(or lack thereof). I am about to roll out a new router and I >> >>quite >> >>>badly need IMQ''s functionality. This is a production >> >>environment, >> >>>though, and random panics of course aren''t acceptable. >>> >>>My question is are there any circumstances under which IMQ is >> >>_stable_? >> >>>The router will have about 6 interfaces, 2 of which will be >> >>to >> >>>(separate) upstream ISPs. The router must be able to manage >> >>the >> >>>bandwidth fairly between the remaining four interfaces, so I''ll >> >>need >> >>>IMQ. Perhaps there is another solution? >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Jason. >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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/
Hi all,
how can i set one range of ip''s from my local network to have higher
priority over the rest ?
I konw that the Whonder Shaper already have the opposite - the selected ip get
the lowest prio.
Thanks you all.
Best Regards,
LEANDRO TRAVAGLIA - Brazil
Hi all,
how can i set one range of ip''s from my local network to have higher
priority over the rest ?
I konw that the Whonder Shaper already have the opposite - the selected ip get
the lowest prio.
Thanks you all.
Best Regards,
LEANDRO TRAVAGLIA - Brazil