netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IMQ again WAS(Re: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement
From: Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:26:29 +0000
Cc: 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: <1111788760.1090.712.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1107123123.8021.80.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111410890.1092.195.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>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050217
jamal wrote:
Changed subject to whats being discused ;->

On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 16:18, Andy Furniss wrote:

jamal wrote:

[..]

OK I would need that to recreate what I do now with IMQ hooked after deNAT so I can see local addresses and use connbytes in prerouting mangle (though that's on my 2.4 I can't get connbytes to work with latest netfilter yet anyway)



What exactly do you use such a scenario for?

IMQ because my shaping box counts as my 3rd PC and sometimes runs bt, mldonkey, wget.

After deNAT so I can do per user fairness.

Connbytes has dual use - I mark first 80KB of bulk tcp with it and send it to a shortish queue which I hacked to head drop and has half my 512kbit bandwidth.

This either priorotises browsing in the presence of bulk or stops multiple connections in slowstart causing latency bumps if I am gaming and someone else is browsing big web pages.

Doesn't fix game + bulk + browsing - I think only a hack to htb/hfsc to have a class behave as full before it is would help this.



If i was to prioritize my time for new actions - how important is this?

Things are OK for me with IMQ - low bandwidth and not many filters seem fine. At high bandwidth/lots of filters it seems problematic - but then most people can use dummy now :-)

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.

I'll have to run again to be sure but I saw a big difference - on egress I could generate 8000pps and have each packet tested by about 1500 filters.

On ingress I saw packet loss with only a couple of hundred or so - it was a tcp test though - so it backed off the loss was deduced by looking at netstat retrans on the sender I couldn't see it on any stats. This was with netperf. Maybe I should think of a better test - I tried udp and it whacked my PC so much I thought it had locked up.


Hey, you want to get started let me know ;-> Thomas and myself plan to
do good documentation on the actions and ematch as they say Real Soon
Now ;->

I look forward to reading them :-)

Andy.


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