[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101013233653.1e363692.billfink@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:36:53 -0400
From: Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>,
Steven Brudenell <steven.brudenell@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tbf/htb qdisc limitations
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 03:17:18PM -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> >>> my burst problem is the only semi-legitimate motivation i can think
> >>> of. the only other possible motivations i can imagine are setting
> >>> "limit" to buffer more than 4GB of packets and setting "rate" to
> >>> something more than 32 gigabit; both of these seem kind of dubious. is
> >>> there something else you had in mind?
> >>
> >>
> >> No, mainly 10 gigabit rates and additionally 64-bit stats.
> >
> > Any issue for bonded 10 GbE interfaces? Now that the IEEE have ratified
> > (June) how far out are 40 GbE interfaces? Or 100 GbE for that matter.
>
> Alas packet schedulers using rate tables are still around 1G. Above 2G
> they get less and less accurate, so hfsc is recommended.
I was just trying to do an 8 Gbps rate limit on a 10-GigE path,
and couldn't get it to work with either htb or tbf. Are you
saying this currently isn't possible? Or are you saying to use
this hfsc mechanism, which there doesn't seem to be a man page
for?
-Bill
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists