Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:49:45 +0200 From: Zbigniew Szalbot <zszalbot@gmail.com> To: Luke Dean <LukeD@pobox.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pf traffic shaping and perfomance Message-ID: <9e91a6220e128d5273f16ef8088d9c5b@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20080423122105.E72531@border.lukas.is-a-geek.org> References: <0cffa49967a87486dca37f253a3c60b5@localhost> <20080423122105.E72531@border.lukas.is-a-geek.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Luke,
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:40:04 -0700 (PDT), Luke Dean <LukeD@pobox.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to implement traffic shaping using pf. I know I need to
>> recompile kernel to be able to achieve this but I have a more general
>> question. I used to have pf with traffic shaping on a Pentium III 866
>> before and as soon as I activated it, the http response of the box was
>> noticably slower. Here are the defs I used then:
>>
>> #altq on $ext_if cbq bandwidth 512Kb queue { def, smtp, udp, http, \
>> #ssh, icmp }
>> #queue def bandwidth 13% cbq(default borrow red)
>> #queue smtp bandwidth 25% cbq(borrow red) priority 7
>> #queue udp bandwidth 10% cbq(borrow red)
>> #queue http bandwidth 40% cbq(borrow red)
>> #queue ssh bandwidth 10% cbq(borrow red)
>> ##{ ssh_interactive, ssh_bulk }
>> ##queue ssh_interactive priority 7
>> #queue ssh_bulk priority 0
>> #queue icmp bandwidth 2% cbq
>>
>> It is quite possible that I misconfigured the shaping (as seen above).
> What
>> would be suggested traffic shaping rules to allow smooth mail operation
>> (smtp taking up to 40% of allowed bandwidth) and http responses?
>>
>> If that matters, uname -v
>> FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #0
>>
>>
>> Many thanks in advance!
>
> I had the same problem with class-based queueing when I tried this. I
> suspect that the 512Kb in your initial queue definition is the limiting
> factor. I never did get it to work like I expected it to, however, so
> maybe I just don't understand it.
>
> Eventually I realized that I didn't actually want to chop up my bandwidth
> like this. What I really wanted to do was simply prioritize the traffic.
> The most important applications get first shot at the bandwidth, and the
> less important applications get choked when they need to be. I switched
> to priority queueing and I've been very happy with it.
Thanks! That gives me a clue! Would you mind sharing your defs? I'll be
reading the man anyway.
Zbigniew Szalbot
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9e91a6220e128d5273f16ef8088d9c5b>