hi ! this patch can work good with last tc release ? which performance haves with rp-pppoe ? bests andres. -> -----Mensaje original----- -> De: lartc-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lartc-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]En -> nombre de Jason Boxman -> Enviado el: Martes, 22 de Junio de 2004 02:17 p.m. -> Para: lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -> Asunto: Re: patch: HTB update for ADSL users -> -> -> On Tuesday 22 June 2004 06:00, Ed Wildgoose wrote: -> > >I'm running PPPoEoATM here. I don't know what my actual -> PPPoE overhead -> > > is, but I guess 10 bytes is reasonably close enough. PPPoE -> is handled by -> > > my Westell Wirespeed, which doesn't provide any useful cell -> information. -> > > At the moment I cannot easily obtain a cell count to -> determine my actual -> > > PPP overhead. -> > -> > Try bumping the protocol_overhead up to 16 for PPPoE (from 10). You -> > should also make sure that your MTU is lower than that required by your -> > PPPoE provider or else you will get ethernet packet fragmentation and I -> > doubt we want to extend the patch to cover those situations anyway. -> -> The largest MTU I could use is 1492. I have the Westell -> Wirespeed handling -> PPPoE, so I speak through eth0 locally. Until recently that was -> fine, but -> now I need to use 1492 instead of 1500 on eth0 due to strange -> SSH hangs that -> haven't happened in a year at 1500 with the same configuration. -> It's odd. -> All other machines are using 1500 without incident. -> -> > The patch should actually have most benefit when you are doing -> transfers -> > with smaller packets. I think with larger constant streams -> like the one -> > you tested, there will be little difference between bumping up the -> > interface speed with the patch or leaving it all as it was (at the end -> > of the day we are mostly just shifting the calculation of interface -> > speed somewhere else). -> -> Without the patch, if I set my rate to 256 * 0.8, I die. The -> connection is -> not completely unusable, but gaming is extremely laggy and Web -> traffic is -> noticeably laggy, although pages still load with about 2s (versus a few -> hundred ms without the patch at 160kbit). With the patch I can -> set it to -> 224, so there's obviously a large improvement even with mostly large TCP -> packets going out doing a bulk `scp` copy. -> -> > >Perhaps I need to idle everything and do one of those 'speed -> tests' to see -> > >what my actual upstream is. Could be it's really around 224, -> since I'm -> > > not guaranteed 256 by my ISP anyway. -> > -> > Your upstream will be 256Kbits of ATM bandwidth. This consists of 53 -> > byte packets with 48 bytes of data. So you already only have 256 * -> > 48/53 of real bandwidth. We then have to take off PPP headers -> and PPPoE -> > headers. -> -> That's the maximum promised speed from my ISP. In reality, of -> course, line -> conditions might result in my true speed not being that high, before -> accounting for overhead and things. -> -> > We are obviously still a few bytes out with this patch or else you -> > should be able to crank up the speed to 250 ish and still see your ping -> > speeds stay low. I will investigate further -> -> Okay, if you're sure it's not just my line having a true -> upstream less than -> the consumer rated speed it was assigned. ;) -> -> > Ed W -> > -> -> -- -> -> Jason Boxman -> Perl Programmer / *NIX Systems Administrator -> Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing | University of Florida -> http://edseek.com/ - Linux and FOSS stuff -> -> _______________________________________________ -> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
