pljosh wrote:
HTB_HYSTERESIS 0 in net/sched/sch_htb.c.
I did it, recompiled, launched... and i looks like it is even a little
bit worser: user1 has almost twice as much BW as user3...
I DO NOT GET IT
IT LOOKS LIKE HTB WORKS FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT ME :(
I tried with your rc.shape script on my LAN
Uytkownik Andy Furniss napisa:
I tried with your rc.shape script on my LAN using scp. I couldn't get
the bash to work - it looks to me like it will only set one user. But I
Did you launch it passing argument in or ''?
./rc.shape 4 5 6
is quite far different than
./rc.shape 4 5 6
hardcoded my
pljosh wrote:
Uytkownik Andy Furniss napisa:
I tried with your rc.shape script on my LAN using scp. I couldn't get
the bash to work - it looks to me like it will only set one user. But I
Did you launch it passing argument in or ''?
./rc.shape 4 5 6
is quite far different than
./rc.shape 4 5 6
p.s.
I made same test on other network with other PCs and different kernel
version and it was the same...
Have you got something recent? Try a 2.6.5 or newer kernel perhaps -
this has 1000Hz scheduling (I think) and presumably the latest HTB
patches. I guess make sure your tc is up to date
Ed Wildgoose wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Can you switch the order of your IP mappings around
on this test so that you can prove that it is some feature of HTB that
user1 always gets more bandwidth, and no something about that machine
(ie if you swap ip's for user1 and 3 that it still remains (the
pljosh wrote:
Ed Wildgoose wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Can you switch the order of your IP mappings
around on this test so that you can prove that it is some feature of
HTB that user1 always gets more bandwidth, and no something about
that machine (ie if you swap ip's for user1 and 3 that it
Ed Wildgoose wrote:
pljosh wrote:
Ed Wildgoose wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Can you switch the order of your IP mappings
around on this test so that you can prove that it is some feature of
HTB that user1 always gets more bandwidth, and no something about
that machine (ie if you swap ip's for
Uytkownik Ed Wildgoose napisa:
(see the htb_lookup_leaf function for details)
Hope that helps...
Hmm... My greatest C program was the most simple snmp client you can
ever imagine - and I was writing it for 2 weeks to finish my classes...
So I think it is not good idea for me to patch (or even to
pljosh wrote:
Ed Wildgoose wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Can you switch the order of your IP mappings around
on this test so that you can prove that it is some feature of HTB that
user1 always gets more bandwidth, and no something about that machine
(ie if you swap ip's for user1 and 3 that it
I just tested with my script and also see a 5-8% advantage for the lower
handle class.
I wouldn't call it a bug though - HTB is written for high traffic setups
and trade off needs to be made between perfect behaviour and CPU usage
and you say it gets better with more classes.
Andy.
Well -
pljosh wrote:
I just tested with my script and also see a 5-8% advantage for the
lower handle class.
I wouldn't call it a bug though - HTB is written for high traffic
setups and trade off needs to be made between perfect behaviour and
CPU usage and you say it gets better with more classes.
Andy Furniss wrote:
I also have half your bandwidth - and it was set at 400kbit for the test.
I meant to say aswell, that if you are doing the tests on downloads you
need to throttle to about 80% of your rate, so you can build up queues
and have a bit of spare for latency.
Andy.
HTB_HYSTERESIS 0 in net/sched/sch_htb.c.
I did it, recompiled, launched... and i looks like it is even a little
bit worser: user1 has almost twice as much BW as user3...
I DO NOT GET IT
IT LOOKS LIKE HTB WORKS FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT ME :(
___
LARTC
13 matches
Mail list logo
