From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar 21 00:25:28 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8D8D916A4CE; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7945E43D31; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:25:28 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rizzo@icir.org)
Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2L8PSRS020122;
	Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:25:28 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org)
Received: (from rizzo@localhost)
	by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.3/Submit) id i2L8PS1x020121;
	Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:25:28 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rizzo)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:25:28 -0800
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To: Vincent Poy <vince@oahu.wurldlink.net>
Message-ID: <20040321002527.A20048@xorpc.icir.org>
References: <20040320141922.B7314@xorpc.icir.org>
	<20040320124422.W8264-100000@oahu.WURLDLINK.NET>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <20040320124422.W8264-100000@oahu.WURLDLINK.NET>;
	from vince@oahu.wurldlink.net on Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:56:08PM -1000
cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
cc: questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Latency problem with traffic shaping (ipfw/dummynet)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 08:25:28 -0000

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:56:08PM -1000, Vincent Poy wrote:
...
> > the above configuration means that if queue 1 is getting a bandwidth
> > X, then queue 2 will get 0.99X, queue 3 will get 0.98X, queue
> > 4 will get 0.97X. Hardly matching any reasonable definition of high-mid-low
> > priority!
> 
> 	Hmm, I think I did it that way because 100 is the largest number
> and I didn't decide on how many queues I may add later so the numbers will
> change but does the weight number really mean 99%, 98%, 97% priority?  So
> should it really be 66, 33, and 1?

no, the weights mean exactly what i wrote above, and they
are weights not priorities. As to the values to use,
that's entirely up to you.

	cheers
	luigi