On Thursday 05 December 2002 07:40, Brian Capouch wrote:
> > From: Stef Coene <stef.coene@docum.org>
> > ;
> >
> >>does it matter that the rate is being reported differently by each
> >>invocation of tc?
> >
> > I don't know exactly how the rate is calculated, but I don't think you
> > sh= ould=20
> > not trust it.
> >
> >>The upload speed of the first runs 252, 258, 254, etc.; on the second
> >>86, 150, 92, 78, etc.
> >
> > Is this reported by tc or by iperf ??
>
> By iperf.
>
> One little detail, and I guess this is the explaining fact but it's
> interesting to think about why: all the machines reported on here are
> using wireless access. The two which are working well have no jitter or
> packet loss, but the two that are acting up both have a fair amount of
> jitter, and about 6-8% packet loss because of their being marginal links.
>
> I'm assuming that is the explanation (I hadn't thoroughly tested the
> link quality before sending that other mail) but I wonder why. They
> show average throughput well above the rate limits I set when they are
> operating without HTB.
Maybe they are generating more bursts and it's possible that your htb setup
allows bursts. So at the long-term, they can get a higher rate.
Otherwise, I don't know.
Stef
--
stef.coene@docum.org
"Using Linux as bandwidth manager"
http://www.docum.org/
#lartc @ irc.oftc.net
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
