Probably I was the last one who changed imq code. so here is are the facts: Basicaly all imq versions are usefull under aproriate condition, whis is do not touch localy generated traffic. ingress nad egress terms are not correct for imq, because it is iptables module, not nic. Just my version hooks on different iptables hooks, and simply ignores all local generated traffic. It cant be crashed with incorrect rules. basicaly only advantage of my version is nore clean way to hook on iptables, code is same for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, and no need to patch, stability should be same on both kernels. Now it is hard to say why imq crash, because crashes occur in various places not related to this module, it seems like memory leak, but does not like imq can have such bug. I suppose there is somethisng wrong with iptables or tcp code itself, since imq does big mess with packets by droping and reordering then alot. Anyway imq does not work as I expected, basicaly all forward shaping is quite hard, I was trying to make tcp traffic predictor because else it is too late. It must be sart enough to work I need to adjust predictor delay, and packets size. what makes it quite hard to implement. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt Wyndroski" <wdwrn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:48 PM Subject: Simply IMQ > I've followed this list for quite a long time and have even > posted a couple > of times. I used the early versions of IMQ from Devik (I think that was his > name), and it worked well. I only ever got the chance to implement it in my > test environment. I now need to implement it in my production environment. > My Linux core router has nine interfaces and has a 27 megabit connection to > the internet. It is quite busy much of the time. It runs Fedora Core 1 now > but will most likely be upgraded to Fedora Core 2 in the next month or so. > > Now with all that said, here is my question. I see that maintenance of IMQ > has been passed on a couple of times. I see some people say that IMQ is not > stable and should not be put into a production environment. My use of IMQ a > year ago invovled only egress qdiscs using HTB and SFQ because the egress > qdiscs were much more powerful and better than the ingress qdisc. The only > problem that I ever had with IMQ was using the iptables target with both > PREROUTING and POSTROUTING. I see Roy has posted that IMQ essentially > crashes when doing egress shaping. Is this correct? I've always understood > egress as outbound shaping/filtering and ingress as inbound > shaping/filtering. I say that because I saw in an earlier post by Roy that > he changed his terminology to INPUT,OUTPUT, and FORWARD. Was he not using > the terms egress and ingress correctly? I see that the current 'big' problem > is touching locally generated traffic. What I need to know is which version > of IMQ is most stable for kernel 2.6? Or even kernel2.4? Is it Devera's? > McHardy's? Correa's? or Roy's? Or should I just leave it alone? My apologies > if I got names wrong. > > This is probably a long email just to ask that question, but I can't seem to > find an answer from the list archives. I downloaded the whole 46 mb archive > and essentially read 90% of the posts related to IMQ. I'm just trying to get > a good understanding of what's happening with/to IMQ. > > Thank you in advance for any advice. > > Walt Wyndroski > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
