> Line is a 40/10 cake limited to 39000/9840.
I think you might be rather optimistic on your ingress shaping rate. In order
to control the queue effectively in the (less ideal) downstream position, the
shaper needs to be set somewhat below the actual line rate. I’m not yet sure
exactly how fa
Hi Kevin,
Silly idea, use the Windows rollback point (or what is it called) from before
the update and then run Windows upgrade again.
Sebastian
On July 16, 2016 1:53:20 PM GMT+02:00, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
wrote:
>
>
>On 16/07/16 11:59, Dave Täht wrote:
>> I would repeat the same test with
On 7/16/16 1:53 PM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
>
>
> On 16/07/16 11:59, Dave Täht wrote:
>> I would repeat the same test with htb+fq_codel.
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> That's more challenging than it sounds - reproducing the test scenario
> would require the windows box going back in time. What cou
On 16/07/16 11:59, Dave Täht wrote:
I would repeat the same test with htb+fq_codel.
Hi Dave,
That's more challenging than it sounds - reproducing the test scenario
would require the windows box going back in time. What could it be
doing that so far any of the flent tests fail to replicate
I would repeat the same test with htb+fq_codel.
On 7/16/16 11:35 AM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Encountering some behaviour that I don't understand. Line is a 40/10
> cake limited to 39000/9840. Overheads 12, 'dual-dsthosts' in ingress,
> 'dual-srcshosts' on engress - limiting
Hi guys,
Encountering some behaviour that I don't understand. Line is a 40/10
cake limited to 39000/9840. Overheads 12, 'dual-dsthosts' in ingress,
'dual-srcshosts' on engress - limiting the on the WAN line. Take a look
at my ping response graph
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/9822
