<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <title></title> </head> <body> Martin Devera wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="Pine.LNX.4.10.10203081156510.15162-100000@luxik.cdi.cz"">mid:Pine.LNX.4.10.10203081156510.15162-100000@luxik.cdi.cz";> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I've tc-ed ICMP to be 1:110, ssh to be 1:120 and the rest 1:130. Guess <br>what? Look at the following example, you can notice that although ICMP <br>should be the highest prio, sometimes it's not. Maybe I've made, again, <br>some mistakes or maybe prio from HTB needs more tuning... :)<br></pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----><br>It is possible. On what hw you did the test ? 10Mbit eth ? If yes then<br>there is possible to have approx 2ms jitter in delay because you can<br>go in when large FTP packet is already in transit.</pre> </blockquote> You guessed right, I was on 10Mbit ethernet. Then again, how did PRIO managed to make it happen?<br> <br> Wait a second. Can't we... I mean you... make a decision to stop sending the pending packet if something more important has just arrived? I guess not... giving a seconf thought it's like once the driver has "spited" the bytes in the NIC's hardware buffer they're gone for good... unless there is a standard in the kernel to say "Stop now nomatter what".<br> <br> If things are like you say the smaller the MTU the smaller the effect, right?<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="Pine.LNX.4.10.10203081156510.15162-100000@luxik.cdi.cz"">mid:Pine.LNX.4.10.10203081156510.15162-100000@luxik.cdi.cz";> <pre wrap="">You can try to do hierarchy of htb/prio/htb but from my side of view<br>I'd rather repair htb's priorization if there is bug ;)<br></pre> </blockquote> Well... it'll be nice to have an htb option with 0 to 9 with 0 being the most draconian in terms of prio and lousy in terms of bucketing and 9 the oposite. But again I'm not in your's shoes... ;-)<br> <br> </body> </html>
