On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 12:11:42AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2013-12-03, Ryan Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:10:32PM +0100, Gabor Berczi wrote:
> >> On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:57 PM, josh Grosse wrote:
> >>
> >> >The new scheduler will be included in 5.5-release. Users of -
>
On Wed 04 Dec 2013 11:39:28 GMT, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
Andy writes:
Read through the whole of this;
http://harrykar.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/openbsd-packet-filteringpf.html
After a very superficial look, he mentions a lot of useful stuff but
unfortunately he's not up to date with then-la
Andy writes:
> Read through the whole of this;
> http://harrykar.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/openbsd-packet-filteringpf.html
After a very superficial look, he mentions a lot of useful stuff but
unfortunately he's not up to date with then-latest release (OpenBSD
4.7, when the NAT syntax changed) which
On Wed 04 Dec 2013 10:12:58 GMT, Gabor Berczi wrote:
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Andy wrote:
Yea we were trying to tell you that from the begging ;) Maybe not as
clearly as we could have..
Yes, in traced back the thread and there were clues I should have
noticed. Oh well.
Anyway, if you us
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Andy wrote:
Yea we were trying to tell you that from the begging ;) Maybe not
as clearly as we could have..
Yes, in traced back the thread and there were clues I should have
noticed. Oh well.
Anyway, if you use a rule like this one with the working altq examp
On Wed 04 Dec 2013 05:28:30 GMT, Gabor Berczi wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:44 AM, andy wrote:
>
>> As Josh and the other guys said, you can use the same queue name on
>> different interfaces but they must be children.
>
> Nope, they don't have to be, but thanks to your working example I
> could d
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:44 AM, andy wrote:
As Josh and the other guys said, you can use the same queue name on
different interfaces but they must be children.
Nope, they don't have to be, but thanks to your working example I
could deduce what's the deciding factor.
=== Every queue must have
On Dec 3, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Ryan Freeman wrote:
try:
queue extpribandwidth 10% priority 7qlimit 500 hfsc
(realtime 5% ecn red)
queue intpribandwidth 10% priority 7qlimit 500 hfsc
(realtime 5% ecn red)
Yes, but as I said, only one of these can be used (can't pass into
On 2013-12-03, Gabor Berczi wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Andy wrote:
>
>> Including http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/queueing.html
>
> This page doesn't even mention neither HFSC nor any new scheduler...
>
The FAQ does not cover -current, it covers the last release.
(Feel free to ask about t
On 2013-12-03, Ryan Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:10:32PM +0100, Gabor Berczi wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:57 PM, josh Grosse wrote:
>>
>> >The new scheduler will be included in 5.5-release. Users of -
>> >current now, or of 5.5 when it is released, who wish to continue
>> >using
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:10:32 +0100, Gabor Berczi
wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:57 PM, josh Grosse wrote:
>
>> The new scheduler will be included in 5.5-release. Users of -
>> current now, or of 5.5 when it is released, who wish to continue
>> using altq syntax and an altq scheduler may do so d
On 2013-12-03 15:10, Gabor Berczi wrote:
Okay. But what you just described ("Child queues are able to use the
same name") doesn't work with ALTQ either. Are you certain it does
with the new sched? (that would mean that it was impossible to do
before)
The PF User's guide shows a cbq example whe
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:10:32PM +0100, Gabor Berczi wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:57 PM, josh Grosse wrote:
>
> >The new scheduler will be included in 5.5-release. Users of -
> >current now, or of 5.5 when it is released, who wish to continue
> >using altq syntax and an altq scheduler may do s
On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:57 PM, josh Grosse wrote:
The new scheduler will be included in 5.5-release. Users of -
current now, or of 5.5 when it is released, who wish to continue
using altq syntax and an altq scheduler may do so during a
transition period, as described in the link above.
Okay.
On 2013-12-03 14:40, Gabor Berczi wrote:
This page doesn't even mention neither HFSC nor any new scheduler...
The new queueing system is HFSC, with a simpler syntax.
It became available to -current users in October, per
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html#20131012
The new scheduler will
On Tue Dec 3 2013 20:40, Gabor Berczi wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Andy wrote:
>
> >Including http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/queueing.html
>
> This page doesn't even mention neither HFSC nor any new scheduler...
Please watch the video record of Henning's talk on the new queueing
subsyste
On Tue Dec 3 2013 20:32, Gabor Berczi wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:03 PM, josh Grosse wrote:
>
> >On 2013-12-03 13:46, Gabor Berczi wrote:
> >>On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Andy wrote:
> >>> queue ack on $extinterface bandwidth 10% priority 6 hfsc ( realtime
> >>>10% )
> >>> queue ack on $intinte
On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Andy wrote:
Including http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/queueing.html
This page doesn't even mention neither HFSC nor any new scheduler...
--
G
On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:03 PM, josh Grosse wrote:
On 2013-12-03 13:46, Gabor Berczi wrote:
On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Andy wrote:
queue ack on $extinterface bandwidth 10% priority 6 hfsc
( realtime 10% )
queue ack on $intinterface bandwidth 10% priority 6 hfsc
( realtime 10% )
One queue
On 2013-12-03 13:46, Gabor Berczi wrote:
On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Andy wrote:
queue ack on $extinterface bandwidth 10% priority 6 hfsc ( realtime
10% )
queue ack on $intinterface bandwidth 10% priority 6 hfsc ( realtime
10% )
One queue can't be on two interfaces.
"queue XYZ already ex
On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Andy wrote:
queue ack on $extinterface bandwidth 10% priority 6 hfsc
( realtime 10% )
queue ack on $intinterface bandwidth 10% priority 6 hfsc
( realtime 10% )
One queue can't be on two interfaces.
"queue XYZ already exists on interface pppoe0"
Google for mor
On Tue 03 Dec 2013 16:06:39 GMT, Gabor Berczi wrote:
On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:48 PM, indiunix wrote:
I would do it like this.
"
altq on $INTERFACE bandwidth $INMbp/s hfsc queue { http, torrent }
queue http bandwidth 70% priority 8 hsfc ( realtime 60% )
queue torrent bandwidth 50% priority 1 hsf
On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:48 PM, indiunix wrote:
I would do it like this.
"
altq on $INTERFACE bandwidth $INMbp/s hfsc queue { http, torrent }
queue http bandwidth 70% priority 8 hsfc ( realtime 60% )
queue torrent bandwidth 50% priority 1 hsfc ( upperlimit 95% )
Just apply these rules to approp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/03, Gabor Berczi wrote:
> Greets dudez,
>
> Help.
>
> How can one properly share (on the firewall, not at application
> level) the _downstream_ bandwidth between for example a HTTP
> download (should get the most bandwidth) and a torrent queue
Greets dudez,
Help.
How can one properly share (on the firewall, not at application
level) the _downstream_ bandwidth between for example a HTTP download
(should get the most bandwidth) and a torrent queue (should be
reduced to the bare minimum except when no HTTP transfer is in
progress
25 matches
Mail list logo
