lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:50:07 +0100
From:	Andrew Beverley <>
To:	Julien Vehent <>
Cc:	"Philip A. Prindeville" <>,
	Netdev <>,
	netfilter <>
Subject: Re: QoS weirdness : HTB accuracy

> > I was, in fact, an error in my ruleset. I had put the 'linklayer atm' at
> > both the branch and leaf levels, so the overhead was computed twice,
> > creating those holes in the bandwidth.
> I am seeing similar behaviour with my setup. Am I making the same
> mistake? A subset of my rules is as follows:
> tc qdisc add dev ppp0 root handle 1: htb r2q 1
> tc class add dev ppp0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb \
>     rate ${DOWNLINK}kbit ceil ${DOWNLINK}kbit \
>     overhead $overhead linklayer atm                   <------- Here
> tc class add dev ppp0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb \
>     rate 612kbit ceil 612kbit prio 0 \
>     overhead $overhead linklayer atm                   <------- And here
> tc qdisc add dev ppp0 parent 1:10 handle 4210: \
>     sfq perturb 10 limit 50
> tc filter add dev ppp0 parent 1:0 protocol ip \
>     prio 10 handle 10 fw flowid 1:10

I removed the overhead option on the first leaf, and the speeds change
to what I expect. However, the rules above are taken straight from the
ADSL Optimizer project, which was the source of the original overhead
patch for tc. So is the ADSL Optimizer project wrong?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists