Did you think something like this?: tc class add dev eth0 parent x: ... htb rate 83kbps ceil 256kbps Quoting Simon Byrnand <simon@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hopefully someone has a suggestion on how I might do this...as I can't > figure it out :( > > I need to be able to set up a group of seperate users who have a > "bandwidth pool" they share, but also be able to limit their individual > bandwidth as well. > > Example: > > I have 5 customers and would like to be able to provide them with a > maximum of 256Kbit each, with a CIR of 33%. > > To do this, I'd like the 5 customers to share a parent group which is > therefore limited to 426Kbit, Which is 5*256Kbit/3. > > The idea being that individual customers can achieve up to a maximum of > 256Kbit provided that the total group pool doesn't exceed 426Kbit, and if > the total group pool maxes out, then each customer should get reduced > bandwidth in fair ratios based on their individual maximum setting. > (Currently 256Kbit for all of them, but I'd like to be able to > differentiate them later) > > If all 5 were trying to fully utilize their bandwidth at the same time, > they should get a fairly distributed 33% of their maximum - eg about > 85Kbit. > > The problem I can see is that both CBQ and HTB don't seem to honour > situations where the sum of all the child rates exceeds the parent rate - > the parent rate is ignored so the 426Kbit cap is exceeded. The HTB docs > even explicitely say this won't work. > > So is there any tricky way to do this with slightly different semantics ? > Surely there must be some way :-) I've spent many long hours studying CBQ > and trying things out and finally came to the conclusion that CBQ alone > just can't do it, but I was hoping HTB could, but thus far I've been > unsuccessful here too.. > > Currently I'm using CBQ but I'm limited in that the individual maximum > speeds can only equal the parent group maximum bandwidth which is workable > for a few customers, but not very satisfactory and not flexible enough as > I add more customers. > > If someone could point me in the right direction or just give me a firm > "nope, can't be done" that would be great.... > > I'd also like to enable short term bursting over and above this as well, > to improve responsiveness during downloading, say, 33% overbandwidth for 5 > seconds, that sort of thing, but I'll cross that bridge when (if) I get to > it...(any comments here on how effective enabling bursting is for reducing > the dreaded unresponsiveness-during-downloads problem would be welcome > too) > > Regards, > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ > Santiago J. Ruano Rincón Avatar Ltda. ParqueSoft Popayán +57-2 8221214 _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
