Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:49:02 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: rihad <rihad@mail.ru>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pipe queues Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1071213001145.6082A-100000@gaia.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <20071211093653.GN11310@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 12:31:00PM +0400, rihad wrote:
> >Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:21:17AM +0400, rihad wrote:
> >>> And if I _only_ want to shape IP traffic to given speed, without
> >>> prioritizing anything, do I still need queues? This was the whole point.
> >> No you don't. I'm using pipes without queues extensively to simulate
> >> WANs without bothering with any prioritisation.
Well, a pipe specified without a specific queue option uses a queue of
the default size of 50 slots, right?
> >Great! One fine point remains, though:
> ># ipfw pipe 1 config bw 128Kbit/s
> >will use a queue of 50 slots by default. What good are they for, if I
> >didn't ask for queuing in the first place?
I think others have pointed out out that you need to queue packets for
bandwidth limitation, so a queue size of 0 makes no sense for that.
> 'queue' is used in two distinct ways within the ipfw/dummynet code:
> 1) There's a "queue" object created with 'ipfw queue NNN config ...'
> This is used to support WF2Q+ to allow a fixed bandwidth to be
> unevenly shared between different traffic types.
> 2) There is a "queue" option on the "pipe" object that defines a FIFO
> associated with the pipe.
Yes it's confusing at first using the same keyword for a rule action and
for a configuration option, especially when an option of queues is 'pipe
pipe_nr' and an option for both pipes and queues is 'queue {slots|size}'
Your para above wouldn't go amiss in ipfw(8) for clarification, though
on the tenth reading it does start to sink in ..
===
> Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement
> an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
exetel good, fixed IP, roll yer own (if you don't owe optus your soul :)
cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.1071213001145.6082A-100000>