Re: bandwidth-limiting on LAN interface egress (2)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:38:39 -0600, Andrew Beverley <andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 16:56 -0600, Lloyd Standish wrote:
Can I assume from your comments that you think queuing in the router
 should not cause big latency problems as long as interactive traffic
 is given highest priority?

My personal opinion is that it should be okay, although depends what you
define as "big latency". I've been running the rules previously
described for a while now, and whilst they're not perfect, the latency
is minimal (I comfortably use SSH whilst the link is saturated).

You might also want to check out some of the "buffer bloat" discussions:

http://netoptimizer.blogspot.com/

http://gettys.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/introducing-the-criminal-mastermind-bufferbloat/

Andy


Hi Andy,
Thanks much for your insights, and for the "buffer bloat" links.

We will be implementing per-user bandwidth-limiting in a couple of weeks.  However, for the moment I was (urgently) asked to skip the bandwidth-limiting and just get a load-balancing router going with some traffic shaping.  That allowed me to stop using qdiscs on the LAN interface.  I have an HTB qdisc on egress of each outward-facing interface, and a policing qdisc on each ingress.

It appears to be load-balancing OK, using "nexthop" to multiple routing tables in the default route, but I can't set a default route in each of the "custom" routing tables.  (See my other thread.)

--
Lloyd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Netfilter Development]     [Linux Kernel Networking Development]     [Netem]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Advanced Routing & Traffice Control]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux