Re: tc drop stats different between bond and slave interfaces

On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 03:41 -0400, jsullivan@opensourcedevel.com wrote:

Hi, Eric.  All the traffic flowing through a single class is because
of the testing we are doing.  It all falls into the bulk class and we
are not generating any other traffic.  The remote side utilizes some
of the other classes because of the ACK and ESP packets.
 
We do want to control shaping closely so I suppose we should place it
on the bond.  We are using HFSC.  In doing that, are we creating a
problem that we have left the default qdiscs on the physical
interfaces? We could redirect those into the IFB interface like we do
the bond interface but then wouldn't we shape twice? Should we put
fq_codel on there like we put on the end of the IFB interface? Thanks 

Please do not send HTML messages to the list. netdev does not allow
this.

Leaving default qdisc on the slave is fine. It allows proper buffering
of bursts.

I see no gain using fq_codel twice in the path. It really matters where
the bottleneck is.