Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:03:27 +0000 (UTC) From: Bernhard Schmidt <berni@birkenwald.de> To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scalability of ALTQ Message-ID: <slrncuclbv.v8f.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> <200501130649.47241.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2005-01-13, Max Laier <max@love2party.net> wrote: >> 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? > >From the manpage: >> realtime <sc> >> The minimum required bandwidth for the queue. > ^--------------^ > > So this is the guaranteed minimum bandwidth that must be available to the > queue at any given time. The makes it clear that the interface must be able > to provided the combined realtime bandwidth of all child queues. Okay, makes sense. >> >> upperlimit <sc> >> The maximum allowed bandwidth for the queue. >> >> linkshare <sc> >> The bandwidth share of a backlogged queue. > > That's more what you seem to want. So my commited bandwidth is linkshare, and the burst is upperlimit? Is there a good description on how these attributes influence hfsc's queueing? Thanks Bernhard
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrncuclbv.v8f.berni>