> I've tc-ed ICMP to be 1:110, ssh to be 1:120 and the rest 1:130. Guess > what? Look at the following example, you can notice that although ICMP > should be the highest prio, sometimes it's not. Maybe I've made, again, > some mistakes or maybe prio from HTB needs more tuning... :) It is possible. On what hw you did the test ? 10Mbit eth ? If yes then there is possible to have approx 2ms jitter in delay because you can go in when large FTP packet is already in transit. You can try to do hierarchy of htb/prio/htb but from my side of view I'd rather repair htb's priorization if there is bug ;) devik > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60676 ttl=127 time=682 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60677 ttl=127 time=682 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60678 ttl=127 time=685 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60679 ttl=127 time=685 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60680 ttl=127 time=713 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60681 ttl=127 time=688 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60682 ttl=127 time=665 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60683 ttl=127 time=655 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60684 ttl=127 time=688 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60685 ttl=127 time=673 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60686 ttl=127 time=689 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60687 ttl=127 time=712 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60688 ttl=127 time=714 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60689 ttl=127 time=1.410 msec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60690 ttl=127 time=711 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60691 ttl=127 time=690 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60692 ttl=127 time=687 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60693 ttl=127 time=689 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60694 ttl=127 time=689 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60695 ttl=127 time=712 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60696 ttl=127 time=1.487 msec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60697 ttl=127 time=685 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60698 ttl=127 time=669 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60699 ttl=127 time=684 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60700 ttl=127 time=676 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60701 ttl=127 time=660 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60702 ttl=127 time=715 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60703 ttl=127 time=688 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60704 ttl=127 time=702 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60705 ttl=127 time=705 usec <--- > From now on I start and stop 4 ftp transfers > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60706 ttl=127 time=1.554 msec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60707 ttl=127 time=690 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60708 ttl=127 time=4.287 msec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60709 ttl=127 time=1.491 msec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60710 ttl=127 time=3.105 msec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60711 ttl=127 time=690 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60712 ttl=127 time=1.461 msec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60713 ttl=127 time=686 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60714 ttl=127 time=1.481 msec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60715 ttl=127 time=1.415 msec <-- I > stop playing with ftp and let them flow > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60716 ttl=127 time=1.295 msec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60717 ttl=127 time=713 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60718 ttl=127 time=688 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60719 ttl=127 time=652 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60720 ttl=127 time=921 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60721 ttl=127 time=828 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60722 ttl=127 time=671 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60723 ttl=127 time=684 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60724 ttl=127 time=716 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60725 ttl=127 time=717 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60726 ttl=127 time=670 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60727 ttl=127 time=681 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60728 ttl=127 time=695 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60729 ttl=127 time=680 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60730 ttl=127 time=1.416 msec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60731 ttl=127 time=713 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60732 ttl=127 time=695 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60733 ttl=127 time=691 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60734 ttl=127 time=675 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60735 ttl=127 time=782 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60736 ttl=127 time=662 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60737 ttl=127 time=660 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60738 ttl=127 time=662 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60739 ttl=127 time=711 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60740 ttl=127 time=684 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60741 ttl=127 time=681 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60742 ttl=127 time=675 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60743 ttl=127 time=669 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60744 ttl=127 time=672 usec > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.64: icmp_seq=60745 ttl=127 time=1.454 msec > > > You can see that every once and then prio from HTB misses some prio > as long as lower traffic is constant in terms of number of connections; > I can testify too that the traffic to the shaped class is still smoth; > HTB has some problems when starting and stopping connections, watch my > notice above. The listing above made me attempt to make a htb root and > from there a PRIO with it's default 3 bands and each of then limited > with HTBs... I quit after it looks like HTB doesn't like being a leaf of > a PRIO's band. I've made the correction you suggested in the last mail > but they were of no use. OTOH root HTB with PRIO and TBF on each leaf > would make the band 0 *REALLY* prio, I'm sorry I don't have the listing > with ICMP's you'll have to take my word for it ;-). Still in the second > case (PRIO+TBF) FTP on the lower bands was very poor distributed in > terms of who gets what amount of traffic; plus it was exactly like I > thought, if you start 10 pings you drown the other bands... dilema! > > > > >
