On Monday, May 29, 2006, at 10:48 US/Pacific, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
On 05/29/2006 07:02:40 AM, Steven Surdock wrote:
I found that cbq didn't borrow as aggressively as I expected.
Switching to the hfsc scheduler approached closer to what I wanted.
That does seem to be better, but I clearly am
On 05/29/2006 10:06:32 PM, Trevor Talbot wrote:
hfsc(linkshare) is what the bandwidth setting controls.
If hfc(linkshare) and bandwidth are the same thing,
then what happens if you specify both?
Karl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free Software: You don't pay back, you pay forward.
--
On Tuesday, May 30, 2006, at 08:22 US/Pacific, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
On 05/29/2006 10:06:32 PM, Trevor Talbot wrote:
hfsc(linkshare) is what the bandwidth setting controls.
If hfc(linkshare) and bandwidth are the same thing, then what
happens if you specify both?
The hfsc(linkshare) value
On 5/28/06, Karl O. Pinc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this the right place to ask this question?
Yes.
Is this the way it's supposed to work or am I missing something here?
(Id be happy to supply pf.conf but AFIK the queue layout is all
that's relevant. Some of my rules are just pass on $if
On 05/29/2006 04:28:49 AM, Travis H. wrote:
Queues are _only_ on outbound traffic.
I am queueing on outbound traffic, typing in was
a mistake. (Actually, I'm queueing both ways, using
an additional box. But that's neither here nor there
when it comes to what's happening with borrowing.)
I found that cbq didn't borrow as aggressively as I expected. Switching
to the hfsc scheduler approached closer to what I wanted.
-Steve S.
Karl O. Pinc wrote:
On 05/29/2006 04:28:49 AM, Travis H. wrote:
Queues are _only_ on outbound traffic.
I am queueing on outbound traffic, typing in
On 05/29/2006 07:02:40 AM, Steven Surdock wrote:
I found that cbq didn't borrow as aggressively as I expected.
Switching
to the hfsc scheduler approached closer to what I wanted.
That does seem to be better, but I clearly am not getting how
hfsc uses the 'bandwidth' parameter as it seems to
