[LARTC] class exceeds its ceil

[Ratel]

Jody Shumaker wrote:

> Andreas Klauer wrote:
>
>Uh... huh? Your P2P class has 100kbit rate with a 5600kbit ceil, 
>but you say you don't want it to borrow bandwidth from other classes. 
>However, to go over the 100kbit rate, it _has_ to borrow.
>
Oh yes, my mistake - I've confused ceil with rate. Anyway, the thing I 
wanted to achieve was to allow
p2p class to use even 5600kbit of my bandwidth, but without guarantees 
like rate. So guarantee a minimum bandwidth to a class - about 100kbit, 
but allow it to reach 5600kbit or more e.g. when there's no other trafic 
present. (Now I know I did it wrong)

>So, if you don't want it to borrow like you said, the solution would 
>be to set the ceil of the P2P class to 100kbit as well. The other
>classes will still be able to borrow from it if the P2P class is not
>using it's bandwidth.
>  
>
Are you sure? In my previous post I was refering to this example 
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2002q2/003958.html
which says this class won't be able to exchange any bandwidth at all.

> Jody Shumaker wrote:
> What are you basing this on? the P2P app or tc -s class show dev ---- ?

I simply block p2p traffic for some time and see that bandwidth usage 
(according to iptraf) falls down to ~20% of total link's "capacity" + 
classes that are supposed to send p2p traffic send nothing. (I also get 
feedback that indeed p2p apps aren't working) After allowing p2p 
through, bandwidth usage jumps to ~100% of the total available bandwidth.

> Are you using thee CONNTRACK module?  It's simple to block P2P without 
> CONNTRACK but if you want to shape it, you need it. Otherwise you'll 
> only be marking the first packets for p2p connections, and not the rest.

I am aware of that, but didn't you mean CONNMARK target (module)?

W