Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:40:22 -0600 From: "Bill Marquette" <bill.marquette@gmail.com> To: "Jon Simola" <jon@abccomm.com> Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hfsc configuration problems Message-ID: <55e8a96c0602221640u24a58694mf644c0948e16f354@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8eea04080602221157h18555b9bxc2719b5a12f7362a@mail.gmail.com> References: <43FC9F63.5070009@xecu.net> <8eea04080602220957v46f9d11ev2544e8cbe893365d@mail.gmail.com> <43FCA7B8.3090300@xecu.net> <55e8a96c0602221042re25f819g1e3815384c022590@mail.gmail.com> <43FCB645.5000508@xecu.net> <8eea04080602221157h18555b9bxc2719b5a12f7362a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/22/06, Jon Simola <jon@abccomm.com> wrote: > Leave out the linkshare and bandwidth, just use realtime and > upperlimit. And the priority of the queues matters, in the above each > of the queues can go as high as 81Mb (90% of 90Mb) but if more than > one tries to go above 45Mb, the one with the higher priority gets > first chance at available bandwidth. Linkshare is another override; in > the above it is easily possible that the q_dmz_lb queue will get quite > backlogged as it gets last chance, adding linkshare would allow it to > bypass the priorities of the other queues. You may not want to even > use priorities, using just realtime and upperlimit is probably a lot > easier for your simplified example. Interesting, priority works if you don't use linkshare? I'll give that a shot! Thanks for the info. --Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55e8a96c0602221640u24a58694mf644c0948e16f354>