So you are saying that I do not need to patch my kernel? I do not understand that statement. I had to recompile my kernel with the imq patch as well as iptables before IMQ would work for me. The way I have always understood IMQ is that it is a virtual network device, a virtual network card if you will. Therefore it seems to me that egress would apply since iptables is only being used to redirect traffic through the virtual IMQ device. IPROUTE2/TC would then shape traffic leaving the virutal IMQ device (egress traffic). This is how I understand IMQ. If I am wrong, please set me straight. >From what you are saying, either IMQ is completely unstable or iptables and/or the tcp/ip stack is unstable. Not that I am a guru on the internals of iptables or the Linux tcp/ip stack, but I think iptables and the Linux tcp/ip stack is most likely stable. To be fair, I must admit that I have not had a full opportunity to test out your version of IMQ either, only the prior versions. Who's version of IMQ resides on www.linuximq.org ? Walt Wyndroski ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy" <roy@xxxxxx> To: "Walt Wyndroski" <wdwrn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 10:34 AM Subject: Re: Simply IMQ > 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/ _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
