On 5/10/06, Muthukumar S <muthukumar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
First up, thanks for the response Jody. I appreciate your taking the time to answer. So in essence what this means is that I will not be able to use the maximum that the link allows if I'm shaping traffic? Please correct me if I got this wrong - let's say my ISP claims 512 Kbit/s upload and real throughput varies between 450 Kbit/s and 500 Kbit/s. So if I shaped traffic using 450 Kbit/s as the root qdisc, I would lose out on the occasions when the line does allow more than 450 Kbit/s?
Unfortunately yes, if you want the shaping to work well you need to set it appropiately. No real way to have it vary dynamically. Basically what happens when you're not the bottleneck is that ping times will go up as data will queue at the other bottleneck, and your bandwidth allotments will no longer accurately represent the connection. They'll have less of an effect as TCP throttling starts having to kick in. I imagine if you designed the rules you could have the ratio between your classes still honored, and only have the increased lag or possibility for packet loss. To do this if you knew it was always atleast 450k but sometimes 500k, set the rates for all the child classes to add up to 450k, but use 500k as the highest ceiling and for the base class. Then in this case it should still continue to split the 450k evenly between the classes as you described, but still using up to the 500k when its available. Not sure how well this would work though as I've usually been more concerned with keeping the latency down, and set the ceil such that the majority of the time its slightly below the real bandwidth. - Jody P.S. Thanks for forwarding the email to the list, I alway forget to hit reply to all. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
