On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 21:32 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Andy Furniss wrote: > >> Well, as much as google tells me TSO has been in the kernel and enabled > >> since 2.5.33 and e1000 was the first driver to support it. The FC4 > >> 2.6.16 kernel doesn't have any tso related patches as can be > >> seen here http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/kernel/FC-4/ > >> > >> Since my immediate problem was solved with the mtu param I plan on > >> forgetting about htb and traffic control in general for the time > >> being :) Thanks again. > > > > > > One more thing I just thought - sfq sets its quantum from the dev mtu. Riiight. I should have tried without the sfq earlier. Without it this works as expected without explicit mtu setting for the htb class. And no giants. # tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:2 htb rate 2Mbit # tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 1 handle 50 fw flowid 1:2 > One more possibility: current kernels support UDP fragmentation offload > (UFO), which has similar effects as TSO. The in-tree e1000 driver > doesn't support it, but maybe the fedora one does. No mention of ufo or e1000 in any of the patches that can be found in the url above. > Changes in the fragmentation behaviour of conntrack in 2.6.16 could also > be responsible (if you're using it). Can you please post your NAT and > marking rules, routing rules etc? Here are the "interesting" rules where the packets in question pass. Have no rules other than the ones in the mangle table mangle OUTPUT -m owner --uid-owner shaped -j userchain userchain .... -m length --length 512:65535 -j MARK --set-mark 0x32 -> the fw filter _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
