Re: HTB ATM MPU OVERHEAD (without any patching)

["Chris Bennett" <chris@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm running some tests as you suggested.  I'll have to wait til there are 
more players on my servers again before I can get some more accurate 
results, but preliminary tests show that 1) the overhead setting is quite 
significant and 2) my overhead value of 24 is a bit too low.

With overhead set at 24, the latency for the players is initially not 
greatly affected by adding an FTP transfer to the mix, but when I let the 
FTP run for a long time eventually the latency starts climbing.  This would 
seem to indicate that something in the calculation is not quite right, and a 
buffer somewhere is slowly filling up.

This is just preliminary... hopefully I'll have something more solid 
tomorrow.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jason Boxman" <jasonb@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:14 PM
Subject: Re:  HTB ATM MPU OVERHEAD (without any patching)


> Those are always the thoughts I had.  I never successfully played around 
> with
> overhead or MPU though.  Did you compare results with and without using
> overhead and mpu settings?

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc