On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:21:36PM +0100, Boris Gereg wrote: > thanks Andreas, I reconfigured HTB to get your suggested hierarhy: One thing I forgot in my graph: Make sure that the rates always add up, i.e. the sum of the child class rates should equal the parent class rate. It's unlikely to be the cause of your problem, but it's important to get this right nevertheless. > Any other things to test, please? Just to see wether we are going into the right direction at all, could you run the following experiment: - Lower the rate and ceil of class 1:2 to 8096kbit. - Lower the rate and ceil of class 1:2000 to 7072kbit. - Lower the rate and ceil of class 1:3000 to 1024kbit. - For class 1:3010, set rate to 64kbit, ceil to 256kbit. - For class 1:3020, set rate to 128kbit, ceil to 768kbit. - For class 1:3040, set rate to 704kbit, ceil to 1024kbit. - For class 1:5040, set rate to 128kbit, ceil to 1024kbit. (You can adjust the rates for these classes as you like, just make sure that the sum is 1024kbit) If in this setup the shaping works as expected - WWW should get 704kbit at all times, P2P only slightly more than 128kbit while WWW downloads are active - then the limiting and distribution of HTB most likely works, and it's just too high rates or r2q/quantum that make it go bad. In this case, you'd have to measure realistic throughput rates of your network (even a 100mbit LAN may not be able to guarantee 100000kbit at all times) and of your internet connection (may not be able to serve 2048kbit at all times). For downstream shaping to work, you have to be the bottleneck. If you get the same problem in this setup (P2P taking all the bandwidth away from WWW), then the problem is most likely something different, and we have to look at it from a different angle. Regards Andreas Klauer _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
