> > I was, in fact, an error in my ruleset. I had put the 'linklayer atm' at
> > both the branch and leaf levels, so the overhead was computed twice,
> > creating those holes in the bandwidth.
>
> I am seeing similar behaviour with my setup. Am I making the same
> mistake? A subset of my rules is as follows:
>
>
> tc qdisc add dev ppp0 root handle 1: htb r2q 1
>
> tc class add dev ppp0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb \
> rate ${DOWNLINK}kbit ceil ${DOWNLINK}kbit \
> overhead $overhead linklayer atm <------- Here
>
> tc class add dev ppp0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb \
> rate 612kbit ceil 612kbit prio 0 \
> overhead $overhead linklayer atm <------- And here
>
> tc qdisc add dev ppp0 parent 1:10 handle 4210: \
> sfq perturb 10 limit 50
>
> tc filter add dev ppp0 parent 1:0 protocol ip \
> prio 10 handle 10 fw flowid 1:10
I removed the overhead option on the first leaf, and the speeds change
to what I expect. However, the rules above are taken straight from the
ADSL Optimizer project, which was the source of the original overhead
patch for tc. So is the ADSL Optimizer project wrong?
Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
