Brian J. Murrell <brian <at> interlinx.bc.ca> writes: > I seem to have made some headway. I upgraded to 4.4.21 but that didn't make any difference.
I did add a 4th column to the tcinterfaces specifying the upstream bandwidth: #INTERFACE TYPE IN-BANDWIDTH eth0 External 6mbit 500kbit and that seems to have had a positive effect: 64 bytes from 88.117.40.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=17.8 ms What's strange is that ping to a site that I have not specified in the tcpri file, but I suppose that's an aside. # ping www.yahoo.com PING any-fp3-real.wa1.b.yahoo.com (98.139.180.149) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from ir1.fp.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (98.139.180.149): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=102 ms 64 bytes from ir1.fp.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (98.139.180.149): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=106 ms 64 bytes from ir1.fp.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (98.139.180.149): icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=171 ms 64 bytes from ir1.fp.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (98.139.180.149): icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=104 ms 64 bytes from ir1.fp.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (98.139.180.149): icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=54.6 ms 64 bytes from ir1.fp.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (98.139.180.149): icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=170 ms 64 bytes from ir1.fp.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (98.139.180.149): icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=99.0 ms What I don't understand is why I have to specify an upstream bandwidth in the tcinterfaces. I guess I had always thought that Shorewall's Simple TC was simply prioritization, not bandwidth allocation. I would have thought TC didn't need to know the upstream bandwidth to simply prioritize the de-queuing of packets in the higher bands. Cheers, b. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
