On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:17:43PM +0200, Sorin Panca wrote: > I've made a test. I've added > 1: ---- 1:1 --- 10: > htb class sfq If that SFQ is the standard sfq with a queuelength of 128 packets, it might be responsible for some of the delay. Unless you have connections in there that can choke the whole bandwidth (probably possible with CS if you set the rates up, I don't know), you may not need SFQ for interactive bands at all. > People in my LAN play almost exclusively in MAN, not in the Internet. I > allocated such high bandwidth because htb would allocate the spare based > on classes' rates ratios. And since 1:1 is a root class as 1:2 and 1:3 > (MAN and Internet respectively) it had to have such a rate even if it is > not found in my real bandwidth. I don't think I follow your explanation here. How do you expect HTB to guarantee a rate for a class (that's what it claims to do) when there is no bandwidth to back it up. I've never dealt with MANs before, so I may be completely wrong. Usually you should not have more than one root class, and you should not let HTB think it can use more bandwidth than there actually is. It's extremely hard to understand the logic behind setups like this and therefore likely to get unexpected results from them. Regards Andreas Klauer _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
