For me ingress works great. ok, i more or less copy/pasted from the "wondershaper" :) I guess it's not good to have a rate of 8000bps AND a burst of 10k I'm also not shure, if the iptables-marks get noticed, but it seems so, as you said there is a shaping effect. but as your iptable-rule is so generally i'd say there's no reason not to use the appropriate u32 filter instead of fw. VMWare shouldn't be the problem, at least i never had ones. Tell me, if tuning rate/burst helped Greetings Tobias On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 12:29:09PM +0000, Julián Muñoz wrote: > > I've done my first test with ingress, > > 2 ftps, and I've seen that the bandwidth is not shared "very well". > > From the point of view of a user, his transfer stops suddenly, and > restarts 20 seconds (or more!) later. Then the other has to wait !! I > observ a kind of feedback process, beeing the interval of stopped traffic > bigger each time, during the transference. > > The bandwidth is limited to 64.000 bit per second, killing packets. > > In fact it is not a real ethernet link, and the filter is on a vmware > machine computer, so maybe this test is not valid. > > Anyone knows more about this behaviour ?? > > Could I optimize it playing with burst and mpu ? > > Or am I doing something really bad ? > > Thank you, > > Here's my filter: > > iptables -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -t mangle --protocol all -j MARK --set-mark > 1 > > tc qdisc add dev eth0 handle ffff: ingress > > tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 5 handle 1 fw \ > police rate 8000bps burst 10k mpu 64b drop flowid :1 > > > -- > > __o > _ \<_ > (_)/(_) > > Saludos de Julián > EA4ACL > -.- > > Foro Wireless Madrid > http://opennetworks.rg3.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
