Is Netbalancer/QoS patch included in ZS 0.1b14

Home Page Forums Network Management ZeroShell Is Netbalancer/QoS patch included in ZS 0.1b14

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 7 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #51566
    atheling
    Member

    @Lyron wrote:

    Well, I´m very sad to update that it doesn’t work for me… I downloads +/- 450 mb and then it drops… It´s better than after (+/- 3 mb), but I really need connection stability…

    Maybe I’m missing something? :S

    Any chance your ISP(s) are doing traffic management? I know that one of my two ISPs definitely clamps down on bandwidth after a few seconds of heavy transfers…

    #51567
    DrmCa
    Participant

    @Lyron wrote:

    Well, I´m very sad to update that it doesn´t work for me… I downloads +/- 450 mb and then it drops… It´s better than after (+/- 3 mb), but I really need connection stability…

    Maybe I´m missing something? :S

    How are you testing the d/l, can you describe the scenarios and software you are using?

    Sorry, just being an ass – you do realize that single-stream d/l will not be load balanced under any circumstances in this case? Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to insult your intelligence.

    #51568
    DrmCa
    Participant

    @atheling wrote:

    @Lyron wrote:

    Well, I´m very sad to update that it doesn’t work for me… I downloads +/- 450 mb and then it drops… It´s better than after (+/- 3 mb), but I really need connection stability…

    Maybe I’m missing something? :S

    Any chance your ISP(s) are doing traffic management? I know that one of my two ISPs definitely clamps down on bandwidth after a few seconds of heavy transfers…

    Hi Atheling,

    Some news: Sometimes I have to add more than 1 segment for the D/L to increase in speed to 2x that of a single connection. Actually, in at least 50% cases. Can you check your patch again, it looks like if the d/ls are started less than a few seconds apart, they would not be load balanced.

    Appreciate your help!

    #51569
    atheling
    Member

    @DrmCa wrote:

    Hi Atheling,

    Some news: Sometimes I have to add more than 1 segment for the D/L to increase in speed to 2x that of a single connection. Actually, in at least 50% cases. Can you check your patch again, it looks like if the d/ls are started less than a few seconds apart, they would not be load balanced.

    Appreciate your help!

    I think you might be running into the basic way that Linux routing works. What the patch does is setup iptables to tag packets for several purposes in a way that are compatible with one another:

    1. For routing so that all packets in one connection use the same WAN interface.
    2. For unsolicited packets received via a gateway to be responded to on the same gateway (allows you to run a server on your LAN).
    3. For QoS so that packets going out of an interface are prioritised correctly.

    (There is a bit more so that the pings used for detecting dead gateways don’t keep flushing the routing cache, but that should not be an issue for this discussion.)

    Your concern appears to be the selection of which WAN gateway to use for a new connection. This is unchanged by my patch and is made by the Linux kernel network routing logic based on the relative weights you specify. Connections that do not have a gateway tagged already are handled by the main routing table.

    I don’t have access to my home system from here (my employer’s firewall blocks OpenVPN) so I can’t show you a console capture. But if you issue the following from the command shell you can see the IP routing rules:

    ip rule list

    The rules that have a realm associated with them are used for existing connections. Untagged packets will be handled by the “main” routing table. You can view that with

    ip route list table main

    The “default” rule at the bottom of that table will list your various gateways and a weights to apply to them. This is the rule that is triggered for new connections. Be advised, however that even this rule is not triggered if there is already a route to the destination that has been cached. In short, from your description, I suspect that the issues you are bringing up are with respect to how Linux does routing more than how Zeroshell, with or without my patch, sets up the IP routing subsystem.

    There is a wealth of information, often unclear or contradictory, on load balancing using Linux. If you wish to understand it better I suggest you start with the section on load balancing for multiple gateways on the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control website: http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html

    #51570
    DrmCa
    Participant

    Atheling,

    If Linux can’t do load balancing the way I would like (i.e. load balance multisegment downloads w/o manual intervention by starting another segment a few seconds later), then I guess I have to keep looking for different solutions.

    #51571
    frekase
    Member

    Hey,

    I´d like to use both at the same time. Is that patch you talked about included in beta16? Until now I just use one pc for QoS and one pc for Net Balancing. I would like to use only one pc.

    Thanks. And much thanks to Fulvio.

    #51572
    DrmCa
    Participant

    Just wanted to mention an issue I ran into while restoring previously working load balanced profile:

    The WAN interfaces should not be set up as default routes, none of them.

    If any one L/B WAN interface was a default route, than no L/B would occur.

Viewing 7 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.