On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 08:50:52PM -0600, jared r r spiegel wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 11:37:06PM -0600, jared r r spiegel wrote: > > > > pfctl: DIOCADDALTQ: Invalid argument. > > here's an odd one ( they're all odd to me <G> ). > i've now made two altq declarations. > one on the internal interface: > ( cbq, consisting of 118 queues total, parents and/or children ) > and one on the external interface: > ( hfsc, consisting of 5 queues total, flat, no children outside > of the queues defined in the 'altq on' ). > > if the order they appear in the conf is: > > altq cbq INT > ( INT queues ) > > altq hfsc EXT > ( EXT queues ) > > i get the DIOCADDALTQ error. > > basically, any valid combination of order ( ie 'altq on' being > above the queues which will be it's children ) in which the INT > ( cbq ) are above the EXT ( hfsc ) gives the error. > > if i put the EXT ( hfsc ) queues above the INT ( cbq ) queues in > the pf.conf, i receive no error // parses/loads fine. > > set require-order no > > made no difference. > > no big complaint, persay, it's something super easy to deal with > ( just put the hfsc guys on top, regardless of what interfaces > queueing is happening on, i guess ), so more or less i'm asking > in a round-about way if that is unexpected behaviour?
well yes, that's because the way the schedulers check for the # of queues is a bit stupid (just looking at the highest ID), and cbq allows for more queues than hfsc currently. hmm. -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
