similar to: system requirements

Hello, Just wondering, from what I have been reading, would using the word bounded solve my problem? I have not actually tried using bounded yet, I will asap, however from what I understand it only applies to classes? I simply have 2 cbq files, cbq-1200.internal, and cbq-1200.external, both of which are identical except one says eth1 instead of eth0. Within each file I have :

The following C test program was compiled using LLVM with -O3 option and MSVC with /O2. The MSVC one is about 600 times faster than the one compiled with the LLVM. We can see that the for loop in MSVC assembler is solved in the optimization pass more efficiently than that in LLVM. Is there an way to get a optimization result in LLVM like that of the MSVC? Manoel Teixeira #include

Hi there, We''re running a small ISP and all the users are shaped to 384/512/768k both ways (whichever package they choose). The router is a linux (debian sarge), the kernel is 2.4.25 right now. All users are getting 10.1.1.* ip addresses (eth1) and eth0 connects to the isp using ethernet (via a media converter, it''s fiber from there). They''re nat''s using

1. Re: LLVM optmization (Bill Wendling) Hi, The IR is not wrong. I said that the assembler generated by MSVC is quicker. We can see that the for loop, in the TESTE function, is done without jump's in the MSVC and with jumps in LLVM. I think thats the point. If we don't use threads, the result is the same. My test were done with one billion interactions in the for loop. The MSVC

Andreas.Klauer@metamorpher.de> > Subject: Re: [LARTC] Re: LARTC Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3 > To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl > Message-ID: <200511021507.43661.Andreas.Klauer@metamorpher.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" > > On Wednesday 02 November 2005 14:59, szogunek wrote: >> i.e. if class 1:{iden} have 190kbit >> i want 95kbit with

I have a setup where I have three NIC in a Debian box. I have eth1 conected to internet and eth0 NAT''ed to 192.168.1.1. eth1 and eth2 are bridged together, given ip 192.168.122.2. What I want to achieve is to perform traffic shaping on the bridge as well as prioritizing the traffic from eth0 very low. (This is from trental flat ...) However it seems that I am unable to perform thhe

Hello, I have a serious problem with HTB which I wasn''t able to solve myself. I run a masquerading router with ppp0 as interface to the Internet. Three clients need to share a downstream of 1 MBit, which I want to divide with tc. When I see a packet being forwarded to one of these clients, I give it the appropriate unique mark: iptables -t mangle -A FORWARD -d 192.168.34.141 -j MARK

now i''m read a lot of knowledge paper about traffic control in linux because now i''m try to develop and research about traffic shaper so can everybody tell me about my topic ... Is it can do for real???? my topic is " now, many organization use traffic shaper for control traffic and bandwidth because don''t want something example some mac address, ip address,

I have a linux server connecto into a 100mps LAN, i use iptables implementation of shorewall (shorewall.net) and then I used the wondershaper. When I adjusted the values below, I got a download speed for vsftp at a whooping 1187.91 KB/s but a upload speed is only a painful 27 KB/s. I dont fully understand the underpinng codes behind the wondershaper htb stuff. can someone guide me on how can i

hi all, my system with kernel 2.4.16 & 2.4.17( RH-7.2) has netfilter-1.2.4, iproute-ss010803, squid, dns with 4 ether cards.i am trying a simple situation where i want to shape traffic all the interfaces. at present iam using netfilter to allow a few ips, using transparent squid & iproute to limit bandwidth. i feel i must give more bandwidth for my local servers for my office &

While I''m thinking about that review of howto changes, here are a few other responses about things I don''t believe. I''ll be interested in more info if anyone has any. ==== [from new doc] Besides being classful, CBQ is also a shaper and it is in that aspect that it really doesn''t work very well. It should work like this. I''ve not noticed that it

My hfsc rule .. tc qdisc add dev eth2 handle 1: root hfsc iptables -t mangle -N ms-all iptables -t mangle -N ms-all-chains iptables -t mangle -N ms-prerouting iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j ms-prerouting iptables -t mangle -A ms-prerouting -j CONNMARK --restore-mark iptables -t mangle -A ms-prerouting -p udp --dport 4444 -j MARK --set-mark 1 iptables -t mangle -A ms-prerouting -p udp -m

Hi there, i''m trying to shape incoming trafic on my linux box. I want it to depend on the source IP adress of the packets (in fact, i got a VPN on an ADSL link and wanted to get at least/max 64Kbit/s for the VPN) So i tried this : tc qdisc add dev ppp0 root handle 1:0 cbq bandwidth 512Kbit avpkt 1000 cell 8 tc class add dev ppp0 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 cbq bandwidth 512Kbit rate

Hello Thilo, What did you find superior with CBQ-wondershaper over HTB-wondershaper? We have not been using wondershaper specifically but our simple tests so far seem to show that htb is much easier to configure for a given target shape (i.,e accurate) compared to CBQ. Torsten -----Original Message----- From: Thilo Schulz [mailto:arny@ats.s.bawue.de] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:55 AM To:

now i''m read a lot of knowledge paper about traffic control in linux because now i''m try to develop and research about traffic shaper so can everybody tell me about my topic ... Is it can do for real???? my topic is " now, many organization use traffic shaper for control traffic and bandwidth because don''t want something example some mac address, ip address,

Hello, I''m a total tc newbie, and I''m trying to tweak the wondershaper script (http://lartc.org/wondershaper/) to get a slightly different result. Excuse me if I will not use the correct technical terms, it''s a whole new world to me :) wondershaper.htb creates 3 HTB classes; 1:10 is high prio, 1:20 is bulk (default), and 1:30 is low priority. The classes are

Hi. I''m trying to get a traffic shaper like this: ------ VoIP pkts --> | |_| ------ \ | ---O -> ------ / Data pkts --> | ------ In this shaper voip packets are in a different queue than any other kind of packet. I want a data packet to be

Hello Everyone :), i''m using cbq.init version 7.1 for traffic shaper, the rule did work well with flat rule (without parent/child)..here the condition of my network : - have a DMZ (and i not want the traffic to DMZ be bounded) - i made the CBQ engine also a bridge and i put it before NAT server (so if

Hi all I am conducting the experiments comparing IP router forwarding delay and MPLS LSR forwarding delay, it is obvious in theory MPLS in Core should be faster than IP, but for small netork (only have several core routers), result show it is not, this is why I want emulate a large IP routing table in one core router. can I do it and how ? right now I use static routing table (by using command :

hello, I have working htb system with about 1000 users. Until now I reload all rules at change, but it take too much time to apply. I cannot delete applyed filters. There is rules for one user: #!/bin/bash -v # Download shaper EX -> 2:20 /sbin/tc class add dev eth2 parent 2:20 classid 2:1775 htb rate 8000Kbit ceil 10000Kbit quantum 1514 /sbin/tc qdisc add dev eth2 parent 2:1775 sfq perturb