I know your concern. Actually, I first try to implement it like you
point out, but then I dismiss that scheme, because it is hard to
maintain for the userspace.
But if the dynfwmark can dynamically alloc htb class in the given class
id range. For example
tc filter ip u32 tc filter ip u32 match ip sport 80 0xffff flowid 1:12 \
action dynfwmark major 1 range 1:1000 <flow parameter> continue
When it detects a new flow, it creates the necessary htb class? So the
userspace work is simple. But when we have segmented class id space, we
may not get such an enough empty range.
On 05 Apr 2005 13:57:38 -0400, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I quickly scanned the kernel portion. I dont think this is the best way
> to achieve this - your qdisc is both a classifier and scheduler. I think
> this is the major drwback.
> And if you take out the classifier - whats left in your qdisc cant beat
> htb or hfsc or cbq in terms of being proven to be accurate.
I think per flow control in nature means that classifier must be
intimately coupled with scheduler. There is no way around it. If you
seperate them, you must provide a way to link them together again. The
dynfwmark way you suggested actually does so, but not clean (because you
choose to use existing nfmark infrastructure). If it carries an unique
id or something like in its own namespace, then it can be clean and
friendly for userspace, but I bet it is unnecessarily bloated.
In my test, HTB performs very well. I intensionally requires a HTB
class to enclose a perflow queue to provide guaranteed sum bandwidth. The
queue is proven to be fair enough and can guarantee rate internally for
its flows (if the per flow rate is at or above 10kbps).
I haven't tested rate lower than 10kbps, because my test client is not
that accurate to show the number. It's simply a "lftpget <url>".
There are short threads before in which someone asked for a per flow
control solution, and was suggested to use HTB + SFQ. My test reveals
that SFQ is far away from fairness and can't meet the requirement of
For HFSC, I haven't any experience with it because the documentation is
> If you could write a meta action instead which is a simple dynamic
> setter of something like fwmark that would suffice i.e something along
> the lines of:
> tc filter ip u32 match ip sport 80 0xffff flowid 1:12 \
> action dynfwmark continue
> tc filter fwmark 0x1 .. classid aaaa
> tc filter fwmark 0x2 .. classid bbbb
> tc qdisc htb/hfsc/cbq .... your rate parameters here.
> dynfwmark will maintain your state table which gets deleted when timers
> expire and will hash based on the current jenkins hash
> Do you have to queue the packets? if not you could instead have the
> police action (attached to fwmark) drop the packet once it exceeds
> certain rate and then use any enqueueing scheme you want.
> The drawback with above scheme is you will have as many entries for
> fwmark as you want to have queues - each selecting its own queue.
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:25, Wang Jian wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I write a per flow rate control qdisc. I posted it to LARTC list. Some
> > discussion about it is here
> > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2005q2/015381.html
> > I think I need more feedback and suggestion on it so I repost the patch
> > here. Please read the thread and get a picture about why and how.
> > The kernel patch is agains kernel 2.6.11, the iproute2 patch is against
> > iproute2-2.6.11-050314.
> > The test scenario is like this
> > www server <- [ eth0 eth1 ] -> www clients
> > The attached t.sh is used to generate test rules. Clients download a
> > big ISO file from www server, so flows' rate can be estimated by view
> > progress.
> > I have some test on it and it works well. It provides good fairness.
> > When all slot being used, in most time, the real rate can keep at
> > specified guaranteed rate. But I know it should receive more test.
> > I have some consideration though
> > 1. In the test sometimes there a pair of unbalanced stream and don't get
> > balanced quickly. One stream get 8.4kbps and another get 11.5kbps. How
> > to find the flow with highest traffic and punish it most?
> > 2. The default ceil equals to rate. Should I calculate it as
> > ceil = rate * 1.05 * limit, or
> > ceil = rate * 1.05?
> > 3. when flow slots are full, optionally reclassify untraceable traffic
> > into another specified class, instead of dropping it?
> > TODO:
> > 1. rtnetlink related code should be improved;
> > 2. dump() and dump_stat();
> > Regards