From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 10 04:08:23 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060B316A4CE for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 04:08:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from out008.verizon.net (out008pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.108]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DB743D2F for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 04:08:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com ([68.160.202.196]) by out008.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040210120822.TPGN10003.out008.verizon.net@mac.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:08:22 -0600 Message-ID: <4028C9A9.7090503@mac.com> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:08:09 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bjorn Eikeland References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out008.verizon.net from [68.160.202.196] at Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:08:21 -0600 cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: dummynet = local taffic > 100ms - help! X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:08:23 -0000 Bjorn Eikeland wrote: [ ... ] > DUMMYNET and HZ=10000 is in the kernel. > > Any suggestions what can be causing this? (I've only got the one nic, > and use a adsl router for internett) I seem to recall some issues with setting HZ very fast, in that it breaks the uniqueness assumptions made by TCP sequence generation if HZ > 1000. Dummynet does want better than the standard 10ms granularity (HZ=100), so perhaps you might try HZ=1000 and see whether that makes any difference. You might also consider increasing the queue length of your pipes when using prioriziation--- are you seeing packets being dropped? -- -Chuck