From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 23 00:40:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2E416A420 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:40:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bill.marquette@gmail.com) Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (xproxy.gmail.com [66.249.82.203]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957AA43D45 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:40:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bill.marquette@gmail.com) Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s7so63913wxc for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:40:24 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MWdU+e2JsvfP6LAWnHXJZSfelx7oR9fjp8+mjKVZxNWLpln1Kxvb3wC/05vY478y39gUymwWBAZJiBs0k/Ir0+eOHJiozcgQ7C1fzKRv+SeT05BCQdwWAQR73EhM+Ttxs6yqONnIen+maWrRa6rYgHQM0q2mMZEg6RDksBl/oto= Received: by 10.70.89.7 with SMTP id m7mr4793463wxb; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:40:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.89.11 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:40:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <55e8a96c0602221640u24a58694mf644c0948e16f354@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:40:22 -0600 From: "Bill Marquette" To: "Jon Simola" In-Reply-To: <8eea04080602221157h18555b9bxc2719b5a12f7362a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <43FC9F63.5070009@xecu.net> <8eea04080602220957v46f9d11ev2544e8cbe893365d@mail.gmail.com> <43FCA7B8.3090300@xecu.net> <55e8a96c0602221042re25f819g1e3815384c022590@mail.gmail.com> <43FCB645.5000508@xecu.net> <8eea04080602221157h18555b9bxc2719b5a12f7362a@mail.gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hfsc configuration problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:40:25 -0000 On 2/22/06, Jon Simola wrote: > Leave out the linkshare and bandwidth, just use realtime and > upperlimit. And the priority of the queues matters, in the above each > of the queues can go as high as 81Mb (90% of 90Mb) but if more than > one tries to go above 45Mb, the one with the higher priority gets > first chance at available bandwidth. Linkshare is another override; in > the above it is easily possible that the q_dmz_lb queue will get quite > backlogged as it gets last chance, adding linkshare would allow it to > bypass the priorities of the other queues. You may not want to even > use priorities, using just realtime and upperlimit is probably a lot > easier for your simplified example. Interesting, priority works if you don't use linkshare? I'll give that a shot! Thanks for the info. --Bill