Re: Is this possible?

Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 19:49 -0800, gypsy wrote:
> Two more things.  HTTP is a bursty protocol, so you need to think about
> the burst and cburst parameters you give it.

I had already figured out that I had to send burst as small as
possible.  I recall reading both value is the

>   If you want to squash TCP
> fast start, use a low burst which will backlog and eventually drop the
> excessive packets.  On the other hand, my experience is that a slow
> started connection never increases its flow rate much even though the
> spec says it should.  And you can get better precision from HTB by
> setting HYSTERYSIS (did I just misspell that?), thus dequeueing a single
> packet rather than a pair.  I don't recommend that, but you should know
> about it.  On many ATM links it is a godsend.

I had already figured out that I had to sent burst as 
small as possible, but the HTB User Guide says "Latest 
tc tool will compute and set the smallest possible 
burst when it is not specified", so I had left it alone.
In fact it defaults to 1919 bytes in my case.  Looking 
at the TC source, this is calculated as:
   (rate_in_bytes_per_second / HZ) + mtu
and then rounded up to the next entry in the rate
table.  Perhaps:
   max(rate_in_bytes_per_second / HZ, mtu)
would of been a better choice.  In my case that
will evaluate to the mtu, so I will try that.

> In terms of headroom, I find that 85 % of real capacity always works, so
> I start with that and push up until something breaks.  YMMV.

Excellent!  Thank you.


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

[Index of Archives]     [LARTC Home Page]     [Netfilter]     [Netfilter Development]     [Network Development]     [Bugtraq]     [GCC Help]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Fedora Users]
  Powered by Linux