On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:27:14PM -0500, Martin A. Brown wrote:
> Right. OK. Sorry--didn't mean to go on a feature-length tirade...
Not at all, I'm happy someone's willing to take the time to explain..
Now, I think I know what I want, however before I try to convert it
all into tc/tcc, I'd appreciate it if somebody could tell me if they
think it makes sense (not yet showing which parts are the classes and
which are qdiscs because that's part of what I still have to figure
out (-:)
o
|
+------------------+
| HTB |
|Limited at 100kbit|
| Ceil at 100kbit |
+------------------+
|
+----+
|PRIO|
+----+
/ | \
/- | -\
/- | -\
/- | -\
/- | -\
/- | -\
/- | -\
/- | -\
+---+ +---+ +---+
|SFQ| |SFQ| |HTB|
+---+ +---+ +---+
Interactive Regular / \
/- -\
/- -\
/- -\
/- -\
/- -\
/- -\
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| HTB | | HTB |
|Limited at 50kbit| |Limited at 50kbit|
| Ceil at 100kbit | | Ceil at 100kbit |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
Bulk App A Bulk App B
Traffic that has the lowlatency TOS bit set, is an ACK, or is on port
80 (I'm not expecting any heavy uploads over http) goes into the
interactive SFQ, and everything else that doesn't have a netfilter
mask goes into 'Regular'. Further, I have two bandwith hogging
applications running whose packets I mark with the iptables MARK target.
Each gets sent to its own HTB (A or B).
What I intend the end result to be is that if there's any interactive
traffic that goes first, then if there's room left the regular traffic
goes, and after that if there's any room left, Bulk Apps A and B use
up all the leftover bandwidth (even if one of them decides to be quiet
for a while).
Is this correct? Suggestions?
--
Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 21A7 C7F3
fvw@[var.cx|stack.nl|chello.nl] ICQ#10074100 1FF3 47FF 545C CB53
Public key: hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net/fvw@xxxxxx 7BD9 09C0 3AC1 6DF2
