On Friday 02 December 2005 23:24, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > Yeah, that is what I want, but why do I need HTB? You need it only if you also want to limit bandwidth somehow. > I guess I am missing the reasoning for partitioning up the bandwidth > with HTB rather than just letting everyone/everything have an > opportunity to use the full bandwidth as long as something/somebody more > important is not using it. Imagine a network where every machine tries to send data at much higher rates than your total bandwidth allows. This may cause packet queues building up at your router, or worse, at your modem or provider. These queues have to empty themselves first before a new packet can be sent, which can cause a lot of additional delay depending on queue size. In that scenario, it's important to take control over this building up queue, which you can do by limiting bandwidth using HTB or similar (so the queue will be in your router, not somewhere else), by making your router the bottleneck. > Surely it will be connection based fairness within the priority class. I haven't looked at the code, but I think it's just a plain fifo queue, unless you attach SFQ or similar to replace it. > Oh? So one ssh could starve another? Why? Are the outbound SSH > packets not just put to the front of the queue in FIFO order? That's what I thought. HTH Andreas _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
