Sorry, I want to do your test but something wrong!!!!!! tc qdisc add dev eth1 handle 1:0 root dsmark indices 64 set_tc_index [root@xxxxxxxx linux-2.4]# tc qdisc add dev eth1 handle 1:0 root dsmark indices 64 set_tc_index Unknown qdisc "dsmark", hence option "indices" is unparsable My kernel is 2.4.2 and iproute is 2.2.4-10 I have checked my kernel, and it support field marker. <M> Diffserv field marker Please give me some advice... thx... > # --- General setup --- > tc qdisc add dev eth1 handle 1:0 root dsmark indices 64 set_tc_index > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 1 tcindex mask 0xfc shift > 2 pass_on > tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 1:0 handle 2:0 cbq bandwidth 10Mbit cell 8 > avpkt 1000 mpu 64 > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 2:0 protocol ip prio 1 tcindex mask 0xf0 shift > 4 pass_on > > # --- AF Class 1 specific setup--- > tc class add dev eth1 parent 2:0 classid 2:1 cbq bandwidth 10Mbit rate 2Mbit > avpkt 1000 prio 1 bounded allot 1514 weight 1 maxburst 21 > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 2:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 1 tcindex > classid 2:1 > tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 2:1 gred setup DPs 3 default 2 > > # --- AF Class 1 DP 1--- > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 10 tcindex > classid 1:111 > tc qdisc change dev eth1 parent 2:1 gred limit 60KB min 15KB max 45KB burst > 20 avpkt 1000 bandwidth 10Mbit DP 1 \ > probability 0.02 prio 2 > > # --- AF Class 1 DP 2--- > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 12 tcindex > classid 1:112 > tc qdisc change dev eth1 parent 2:1 gred limit 60KB min 15KB max 45KB burst > 20 avpkt 1000 bandwidth 10Mbit DP 2 \ > probability 0.04 prio 3 > > # --- AF Class 1 DP 3--- > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 14 tcindex > classid 1:113 > tc qdisc change dev eth1 parent 2:1 gred limit 60KB min 15KB max 45KB burst > 20 avpkt 1000 bandwidth 10Mbit DP 3 \ > probability 0.06 prio 4 > > #------BE Queue setup------ > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 2 handle 0 tcindex mask 0 > classid 1:1 > tc class add dev eth1 parent 2:0 classid 2:5 cbq bandwidth 100Mbit rate > 2Mbit avpkt 1000 prio 8 bounded allot 1514 weight 1 maxburst 21 > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 2:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 0 tcindex > classid 2:5 > tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 2:5 red limit 60KB min 15KB max 45KB burst 20 > avpkt 1000 bandwidth 10Mbit probability 0.4 > > ########################## > Here are part of what i get when i "tc -s qdisc": > qdisc red 8005: dev eth1 limit 60Kb min 15Kb max 45Kb > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0) > marked 0 early 0qdisc gred 8001: dev eth1 > DP:1 (prio 8) Average Queue 0b Measured Queue 0b > Packet drops: 0 (forced 0 early 0) > Packet totals: 0 (bytes 0) ewma 3 Plog 21 Scell_log 9 > DP:2 (prio 8) Average Queue 0b Measured Queue 0b > Packet drops: 0 (forced 0 early 0) > Packet totals: 0 (bytes 0) ewma 3 Plog 20 Scell_log 9 > DP:3 (prio 8) Average Queue 0b Measured Queue 0b > Packet drops: 0 (forced 0 early 0) > Packet totals: 0 (bytes 0) ewma 3 Plog 19 Scell_log 9 > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0) > > qdisc cbq 2: dev eth1 rate 10Mbit (bounded,isolated) prio no-transmit > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0) > borrowed 0 overactions 0 avgidle 624 undertime 0 > > qdisc dsmark 1: dev eth1 indices 0x0040 set_tc_index > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0) > pdrop 0 other 0 > > ##################### > > my question is why is the prio shown is always 8, although i set them to > prio 2,3,4 respectively? And i suspect because of this, i actually get > better performance for BE (in terms of lower delay). > > Also, i would like to clarify some requirement for af as proosed in RFC. In > "Appendix: Example services" of RFC 2597, it said that AF1x should have > "greater probability for timely forwarding by having lighter load". > Therefore, i send lighter traffic to class 1, than class 2 and 3. But still > i get lower delay for class BE, and no observable difference in delay for > class 1, 2 and 3 (maybe it is the prio 8 problem as described above). > > What do you guys think about the delay for AF as proposed in RFC? Should AF > class 1 has the smallest delay compared to class 2,3 4 and BE? > > Last question, what do we do with excess AF traffic? Do we drop it or > downgrade it to BE? > > If you have read to this part, i must thank you for your patience. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/ >
