netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IMQ again WAS(Re: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement

To: Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: IMQ again WAS(Re: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement
From: Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:39:03 +0100
Cc: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, Remus <rmocius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Nguyen Dinh Nam <nguyendinhnam@xxxxxxxxx>, Andre Tomt <andre@xxxxxxxx>, syrius.ml@xxxxxxxxxx, Damion de Soto <damion@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <42470AF9.8050402@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1107123123.8021.80.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <423F41AD.3010902@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111444869.1072.51.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <423F71C2.8040802@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111462263.1109.6.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42408998.5000202@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111550254.1089.21.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4241C478.5030309@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111607112.1072.48.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4241D764.2030306@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111612042.1072.53.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4241F1D2.9050202@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4241F7F0.2010403@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111625608.1037.16.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <424212F7.10106@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111663947.1037.24.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111665450.1037.27.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4242DFB5.9040802@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111749220.1092.457.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42446DB2.9070809@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111781443.1092.631.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4244802C.7020202@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111788760.1090.712.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42470AF9.8050402@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050217
Andy Furniss wrote:
jamal wrote:

I'll have to re-run a test I did recently which was lots of tc filter matches at 8000pps - on egress IMQ was almost as good as directly on eth0. On ingress it was more than 10X worse.

How many filters? I wont suspect any difference between ingress and egress.


You are right - the test was to blame.

I was using my old PC as sender, it's frozen in time at 2.4.20 which for some reason has a txqueuelen on eth0 of 0. It doesn't show using netperf when just testing LAN speed - but makes alot of difference for the test I did - ifconfig eth0 txqueuelen 1000 fixed it.

Hmm - I just tried to recreate another test I did - which was using IMQ to shape for a single duplex link. I was going to redo it with dummy, but don't seem to be able to put an egress filter on eth0 - eg. Your example from the first post in this thread -

What you can do with dummy currently with actions
--------------------------------------------------

Lets say you are policing packets from alias 192.168.200.200/32
you dont want those to exceed 100kbps going out.

tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1: protocol ip prio 10 u32 \
match ip src 192.168.200.200/32 flowid 1:2 \
action police rate 100kbit burst 90k drop

Gives me -

RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
We have an error talking to the kernel

Andy.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>