From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 5 11:30:40 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3941065695 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:30:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@kuzbass.ru) Received: from www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (www.svzserv.kemerovo.su [213.184.65.80]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C8C8FC15 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:30:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (eugen@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n95BUb0Y079010; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:30:37 +0800 (KRAST) (envelope-from eugen@www.svzserv.kemerovo.su) Received: (from eugen@localhost) by www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n95BUbR2079009; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:30:37 +0800 (KRAST) (envelope-from eugen) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:30:37 +0800 From: Eugene Grosbein To: rihad Message-ID: <20091005113037.GA77999@svzserv.kemerovo.su> References: <4AC8A76B.3050502@mail.ru> <20091005025521.GA52702@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <20091005061025.GB55845@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <4AC9B400.9020400@mail.ru> <20091005090102.GA70430@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <4AC9BC5A.50902@mail.ru> <20091005095600.GA73335@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <20091005100446.GA60244@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20091005100532.GC73335@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <4AC9C88A.5050509@mail.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AC9C88A.5050509@mail.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Luigi Rizzo Subject: Re: dummynet dropping too many packets X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:30:40 -0000 On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 03:20:58PM +0500, rihad wrote: > >>>Taildrop does not really help with this. GRED does much better. > >>i think the first problem here is figure out _why_ we have > >>the drops, as the original poster said that queues are configured > >>with a very large amount of buffer (and i think there is a > >>misconfiguration somewhere because the mbuf stats do not make > >>sense) > > > >That may be very simple, f.e. wide uplink channel and policy that > >dictates slower client speeds. Any taildrop queue would drop lots > >of packets. > > > If uplink is e.g. 100 mbit/s, but data is fed to client by dummynet at 1 > mbit/s, doesn't the _client's_ TCP software know to slow things down to > not overwhelm 1 mbit/s? That's not client's TCP software feeding your router with traffic but server side. > Where has TCP slow-start gone? My router box > isn't some application proxy that starts downloading at full 100 mbit/s > thus quickly filling client's 1 mbit/s link. It's just a router. While there is no or little competition for bandwidth from the router to clients, TCP would work just fine. I suspect your shaping policy makes heavy competition between clients. In this case, TCP behaves not-so-well without help of router's good shaping algorythms and taildrop is not good one. > Although it doesn't yet make sense to me, I'll try going to GRED soon. "Works for me" :-) Eugene Grosbein