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
[email protected]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
