From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar 21 02:56:24 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C3F6016A4CE; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 02:56:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oahu.WURLDLINK.NET (oahu.wurldlink.net [66.193.144.7])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4752343D1D; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 02:56:24 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from vince@oahu.WURLDLINK.NET)
Received: from oahu.WURLDLINK.NET (vince@localhost.WURLDLINK.NET [127.0.0.1])
	by oahu.WURLDLINK.NET (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i2LAtIqQ029103;
	Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:55:28 -1000 (HST)
Received: from localhost (vince@localhost)i2LAtHvI029100;
	Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:55:17 -1000 (HST)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:55:17 -1000 (HST)
From: Vincent Poy <vince@oahu.WURLDLINK.NET>
To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040321002527.A20048@xorpc.icir.org>
Message-ID: <20040321005330.J8264-100000@oahu.WURLDLINK.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
cc: questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Latency problem with traffic shaping (ipfw/dummynet)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:56:24 -0000

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Luigi Rizzo wrote:

> 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.

	Just as I thought.  I rebooted and latencies have gone down.  It
seems that latency when the pipes are filled are always 50-100ms slower on
boxes behind the FreeBSD box.  One question though, with ipfw pipe show or
ipfw queue show, is it supposed to show all traffic that matches the queue
rule or just only one?


Cheers,
Vince - vince@WURLDLINK.NET - Vice President             ________   __ ____
Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / |  / |[__  ]
WurldLink Corporation                                  / / / /  | /  | __] ]
San Francisco - Honolulu - Hong Kong                  / / / / / |/ / | __] ]
HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____]
Almighty1@IRC - oahu.DAL.NET Hawaii's DALnet IRC Network Server Admin