netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2.6] update to network emulation QOS scheduler

To: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] update to network emulation QOS scheduler
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:58:31 -0700
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, Catalin BOIE <util@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1089226667.1027.411.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Organization: Open Source Development Lab
References: <20040701113312.43cfe6c5@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <20040702134437.5891e998@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <1088824432.1043.271.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20040707111055.32ebb25b@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <1089226667.1027.411.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On 07 Jul 2004 14:57:48 -0400
jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I seem to have hit the jackpot - all my emails to netdev are showing
> up and on time too.
> 
> On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 14:10, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Ok, I'll bite how would you do:
> > 
> > Rate limit packet egress on a ethernet device (eth0) so it looks like a 
> > slow DSL link (25 Kbps)
> > by not dropping packets but by pacing the data.
> 
> Doesnt TBF work? 
> rate 25kbit burst 90k should probably do it.  Maybe i misunderstood the
> question.

TBF works but since the sender (on the same local machine) may go over it's 
allocation,
it will drop packets.

For example, if I use tbf to simulate a slow 33k bits/sec link then TCP test 
never
completes, it just hangs!  TBF does work for intermediate sizes.

But if I use the pacing simulation it works.

> 
> You may be able to avoid dropping but dont think you can guarantee it
> simply because you have finite buffers. At some point you will congest
> that queue and packets will be dropped; and if you dont limit your queue
> buffer size, sooner than later you are bound to hog all the system
> memory.

I understand that, every queue has to have a limit.

> Having said that, i have never seen a good arguement for why pacing
> traffic vs dropping to initiate a slowdown is better than the other.
> So in that case, a policer/meter should suffice.



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