netdev - Re: QoS weirdness : HTB accuracy

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1281536837.1432.70.camel@andybev>
Date:	Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:27:17 +0100
From:	Andrew Beverley <andy@...ybev.com>
To:	hawk@...x.dk
Cc:	Julien Vehent <julien@...uxwall.info>,
	"Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@...fish-solutions.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	netfilter <netfilter@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: QoS weirdness : HTB accuracy

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 15:07 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> 
> >>> 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?
> 
> After looking at the HTB kernel code I believe that the ADSL Optimizer 
> project is NOT wrong.  You should/must set the linklayer option on both 
> the root class and leaf (else you would be charging the root/parent node 
> too little).
> 
> It is the expected behavior that small packets cause a significant
> reduction in the available bandwidth on the ATM link.  Small packets will 
> (almost) always cause 2 ATM packets (being send) using 106 bytes, thus
> eg. sending a 40 bytes TCP ACK packet result in approx 62% overhead.

[sorry for the late reply]

Maybe I am using the linklayer atm option wrong:

1. I am using it with a PCI ADSL modem. As the kernel "knows" that it's
dealing with an ATM device, is there any need to even specify the option
in the first place?

2. My methodology for calculating the overall speed limit for the device
is to download several large files and see what throughput I get. I then
use this figure in the rules above. However, as soon as I add a
linklayer option, the maximum throughout of the device obviously drops,
but means that I never get the throughput that I know the line is
capable of. Assuming that I should even be using the linklayer atm
option, should I be specifying the line speed higher than that which I
physically observe during line speed tests?

For example, if I observe an ADSL line speed of 4000kbit/s, I then
specify 3600kbit/s for the root of the HTB class, but with the linklayer
atm option I only get about 3200kbit/s. Should I be specifying a higher
value in order to get the most out of the connection?

Andy


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