Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:49:40 +0100 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Cc: Bernhard Schmidt <berni@birkenwald.de> Subject: Re: Scalability of ALTQ Message-ID: <200501130649.47241.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <slrncubgsj.hlr.berni@bschmidt.msgid.cybernet-ag.net> References: <slrnctu80f.aet.berni@bschmidt.msgid.cybernet-ag.net> <slrncub40q.f4s.berni@bschmidt.msgid.cybernet-ag.net> <slrncubgsj.hlr.berni@bschmidt.msgid.cybernet-ag.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart4036111.6t8qkiUj0U
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
On Thursday 13 January 2005 01:40, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> On 2005-01-12, Bernhard Schmidt <berni@birkenwald.de> wrote:
> >> From a very first glance, I think HSFC is what best suits your
> >> application. Here again, you must make sure not to overload your parent
> >> with the client bandwidth.
> >
> > Hrm, I guess I'll just convert a current Packeteer policy to an pf one
> > and have a look whether it loads smoothly. I heard today that we already
> > have a Dell PE750 on stock, I think I'll give it a shot. In the end,
> > a mirrored switchport to the BSD box should be sufficient to test.
>
> And me again ... I'm now having a problem where I'm not entirely sure
> whether I misunderstood the manpage or there is a bug in the parsing.
>
> I fell about some errors converting a small subset of our packeteer
> rules to pf. I created a testcase with the following config
>
> altq on vr1 hfsc bandwidth 5000001b queue { 1, 9999 }
> queue 1 hfsc(red, realtime 5000000b, upperlimit 5000000b) { 2 }
> queue 2 hfsc(red, realtime 4900000b, upperlimit 5000000b) { 3 }
> queue 3 hfsc(red, realtime 4800000b, upperlimit 5000000b) { 4 }
> queue 4 hfsc(red, realtime 4700000b, upperlimit 5000000b)
>
> queue 9999 hfsc(default, red, realtime 0b, upperlimit 5000000b)
>
> when loading I get
>
> pfctl: real-time sc exceeds the interface bandwidth
> pf.conf:3: errors in queue definition
>
> apparently when using subqueues pf adds up the realtime bandwidth of all
> queues and compares it to the interface bandwidth. To my understanding
> the sum of the bandwidth of all child queues should be compared to the
> direct parent queue. Am I wrong here?
>
> Of course I could increase the bandwidth parameter on vr1 to something
> really hillariously high, but is this the thing intended?
=46rom the manpage:
> realtime <sc>
> The minimum required bandwidth for the queue.
^--------------^
So this is the guaranteed minimum bandwidth that must be available to the=20
queue at any given time. The makes it clear that the interface must be abl=
e=20
to provided the combined realtime bandwidth of all child queues.
>=20
> upperlimit <sc>
> The maximum allowed bandwidth for the queue.
>=20
> linkshare <sc>
> The bandwidth share of a backlogged queue.
That's more what you seem to want.
=2D-=20
/"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org
\ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661
X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet
/ \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
--nextPart4036111.6t8qkiUj0U
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBB5gv7XyyEoT62BG0RAtWKAJ9Jp9z38joCcFe8tk5P6ONMmVJbNwCffURj
gXubF85hiCnWiMZHCbVpeWg=
=ePd8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart4036111.6t8qkiUj0U--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200501130649.47241.max>