Re: PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

> On 15 Sep 2023, at 18:54, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2023/09/15 13:40, Andy Lemin wrote: >> Hi Stuart, >> >> Seeing as it seems like everyone is too busy, and my workaround >> (not queue some flows on interfaces with queue defined) seems of no >> interest, > > well, it might be, but I

Re: PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

On 2023/09/15 13:40, Andy Lemin wrote: > Hi Stuart, > > Seeing as it seems like everyone is too busy, and my workaround > (not queue some flows on interfaces with queue defined) seems of no > interest, well, it might be, but I'm not sure if it will fit with how queues work.. > and my current hac

Re: PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

Hi Stuart,Seeing as it seems like everyone is too busy, and my workaround (not queue some flows on interfaces with queue defined) seems of no interest, and my current hack to use queuing on Vlan interfaces is a very incomplete and restrictive workaround;Would you please be so kind as to provide me

Re: PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 7:23 PM Andrew Lemin wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 8:35 PM Stuart Henderson < > stu.li...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > >> On 2023-09-13, Andrew Lemin wrote: >> > I have noticed another issue while trying to implement a 'prio'-only >> > workaround (using only prio orde

Re: PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 8:35 PM Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2023-09-13, Andrew Lemin wrote: > > I have noticed another issue while trying to implement a 'prio'-only > > workaround (using only prio ordering for inter-VLAN traffic, and HSFC > > queuing for internet traffic); > > It is not possibl

Re: PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 8:22 PM Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2023-09-12, Andrew Lemin wrote: > > A, thats clever! Having bandwidth queues up to 34,352M would > definitely > > provide runway for the next decade :) > > > > Do you think your idea is worth circulating on tech@ for further > > di

Re: PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

On 2023-09-13, Andrew Lemin wrote: > I have noticed another issue while trying to implement a 'prio'-only > workaround (using only prio ordering for inter-VLAN traffic, and HSFC > queuing for internet traffic); > It is not possible to have internal inter-vlan traffic be solely priority > ordered w

Re: PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

On 2023-09-12, Andrew Lemin wrote: > A, thats clever! Having bandwidth queues up to 34,352M would definitely > provide runway for the next decade :) > > Do you think your idea is worth circulating on tech@ for further > discussion? Queueing at bps resolution is rather redundant nowadays, even

Re: PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 3:43 AM Andrew Lemin wrote: > Hi Stuart. > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:25 AM Stuart Henderson < > stu.li...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > >> On 2023-09-12, Andrew Lemin wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > Hope this finds you well. >> > >> > I have discovered that PF's queueing is still

Re: PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

Hi Stuart. On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:25 AM Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2023-09-12, Andrew Lemin wrote: > > Hi all, > > Hope this finds you well. > > > > I have discovered that PF's queueing is still limited to 32bit bandwidth > > values. > > > > I don't know if this is a regression or not. >

Re: PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

On 2023-09-12, Andrew Lemin wrote: > Hi all, > Hope this finds you well. > > I have discovered that PF's queueing is still limited to 32bit bandwidth > values. > > I don't know if this is a regression or not. It's not a regression, it has been capped at 32 bits afaik forever (certainly was like t

PF queue bandwidth limited to 32bit value

Hi all, Hope this finds you well. I have discovered that PF's queueing is still limited to 32bit bandwidth values. I don't know if this is a regression or not. I am sure one of the objectives of the ALTQ rewrite into the new queuing system we have in OpenBSD today, was to allow bandwidth values l

Re: pf queue on packets with state

Hi Stuart, thank you for your clear reply On 2021-02-02 22:41:49, Stuart Henderson wrote: > Whichever rule creates state for the packets that you want to send > to a queue should have the queue assignment. The queue name is attached > to the PF state; when the packet is transmitted outbound it will

Re: pf queue on packets with state

On 2021-02-02, michal.lyszc...@bofc.pl wrote: > --syjteu3hgkkj7xpe > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Hi, I'm trying to setup queues on my LTE interface. This machine is firewall > machine with two interfaces: wan and la

pf queue on packets with state

Hi, I'm trying to setup queues on my LTE interface. This machine is firewall machine with two interfaces: wan and lan. Egress traffic is queueing without a problem. Rules like match out on $i_wan proto {tcp udp} to any port $p_dns set queue q_lte_out_dns set prio 6 work as intended and I can s

Re: pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem

-- On Sat, 5/13/17, Carl Mascott wrote: Subject: Re: pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem To: "Mike Belopuhov" Cc: misc@openbsd.org Date: Saturday, May 13, 2017, 4:55 PM I forgot to ask: How will I know when there's a snapshot with a fixed pfctl b

Re: pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem

s..). Gee, this was easy. Thanks! On Sat, 5/13/17, Mike Belopuhov wrote: Subject: Re: pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem To: "Carl Mascott" Cc: misc@openbsd.org, t...@openbsd.org Date: Saturday, May 13, 2017, 3:23 PM

Re: pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem

y you have already tested it. In that case, I guess it's OK to commit it (or however the process works..). Gee, this was easy. Thanks! On Sat, 5/13/17, Mike Belopuhov wrote: Subject: Re: pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem To

Re: pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem

> or ~1M. > > When I have time I'll do a simple test. > > > > > On Sat, 5/13/17, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > Subject: Re: pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem > To: "Carl Mascott" > Cc: m

Re: pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem

time I'll do a simple test. -------- On Sat, 5/13/17, Mike Belopuhov wrote: Subject: Re: pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem To: "Carl Mascott" Cc: misc@openbsd.org Date: Saturday, May 13, 2017, 12:02 PM On Tue, May 09,

Re: pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 19:47 +, Carl Mascott wrote: > Intel Atom D2500 1.66GHz > OpenBSD i386 v6.1-stable > > I can't get pf to give me the queue bandwidths that I specify in pf.conf. > > pf.conf: > > queue rootq on $ext_if bandwidth 9M max 9M qlimit 100 > queue qdef parent rootq ba

pf queue definition: bandwidth resolution problem

Intel Atom D2500 1.66GHz OpenBSD i386 v6.1-stable I can't get pf to give me the queue bandwidths that I specify in pf.conf. pf.conf: queue rootq on $ext_if bandwidth 9M max 9M qlimit 100 queue qdef parent rootq bandwidth 3650K default queue qrtp parent rootq bandwidth 350K min 35

Re: pf queue bandwidth estimation

On 2016/05/13 11:31, niya levi wrote: > hi Stuart > > On 13/05/16 08:32, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2016-05-12, niya levi wrote: > >> using broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk i measured the bandwidth on my virgin > >> media line, > >> the download speed varied form as low as 20Mb/sec up to 50Mb/sec

Re: pf queue bandwidth estimation

On 2016-05-12, niya levi wrote: > using broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk i measured the bandwidth on my virgin > media line, > the download speed varied form as low as 20Mb/sec up to 50Mb/sec > depending on the time of day the test was run, Queuing is done on the transmit side, so the bandwidth you sh

pf queue bandwidth estimation

using broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk i measured the bandwidth on my virgin media line, the download speed varied form as low as 20Mb/sec up to 50Mb/sec depending on the time of day the test was run, what will be the result if i put a value for the queue bandwidth which is greater or lesser the the max

pfqstat - records pf queue bytes in CSV format

One of my favorite ports is pfstat. I've used it religiously for years with minor firewalls for bandwidth and queue graphs. When ALTQ was retired, pfstat could no longer graph my queues and this is still the case today. The correct behavior here would be for me to roll up my college-level C slee

Re: pf/queue questions

> From: "Daniel Melameth" > Subject: Re: pf/queue questions > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Dewey Hylton wrote: > > i have a site-to-site vpn setup across a 40Mbps wan link (average ~30ms > > latency). one of its uses is for san replication, but of

Re: pf queue max bug

Hi, I think that I found something. It occurs when I set max limit on i_bittor/b_bittor queues but I didn't set min limit. I read pf.conf(5) many times and I didn't find that min and max must be used together. In i386 I had this: queue rootq on $ExtIf bandwidth 100M max 100M queue inter pa

Re: pf/queue questions

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Dewey Hylton wrote: > i have a site-to-site vpn setup across a 40Mbps wan link (average ~30ms > latency). one of its uses is for san replication, but of course management > traffic (ssh sessions, etc.) have to cross the link as well. without using > queues, at time

pf/queue questions

i have a site-to-site vpn setup across a 40Mbps wan link (average ~30ms latency). one of its uses is for san replication, but of course management traffic (ssh sessions, etc.) have to cross the link as well. without using queues, at times the replication traffic is such that management traffic

pf/queue questions

i have a site-to-site vpn setup across a 40Mbps wan link (average ~30ms latency). one of its uses is for san replication, but of course management traffic (ssh sessions, etc.) have to cross the link as well. without using queues, at times the replication traffic is such that management traffic suff

Re: pf queue max bug

On 22.09.2014 23:23, Jacob L. Leifman wrote: Hi, I think you are hitting the edge case discussed earlier this month (by stu@ henning@ and others and it might have been on tech@) -- due to fairly low OS interrupt rate (baked in default is 100Hz), low bandwidth queue limits on high-bandwidth pipes

Re: pf queue max bug

On 22.09.2014 22:50, Atanas Vladimirov wrote: Hi, I rewrote my rulesets with no luck: QUEUE BW SCH PRIO PKTSBYTES DROP_P DROP_B QLEN BORROW SUSPEN P/S B/S rootq on em0 98M 000 00 0 0 in

Re: pf queue max bug

Hi, I rewrote my rulesets with no luck: QUEUE BW SCH PRIO PKTSBYTES DROP_P DROP_B QLEN BORROW SUSPEN P/S B/S rootq on em0 98M 0000 0 0 0 inter 1M

Re: pf queue max bug

On 21.09.2014 20:56, Kevin Gerrard wrote: I was receiving this same error a few days ago. It was because I had a rule that was referring to a table that was not there or something another. That was the exact error I received. Finally figured that out and it has been flawless since. The rule t

Re: pf queue max bug

Hi, Is there any way to disable/flush (like with ALTQ) pf queues? I tryed with `pfctl -d; pfctl -e; pfctl -f /etc/pf.conf' but I got an error: pfctl: DIOCXCOMMIT: Invalid argument The only reference I could find was this: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=140421855720135&w=2 Is this a known

Re: pf queue max bug

On 16.09.2014 20:00, Atanas Vladimirov wrote: On 16.09.2014 19:32, Zé Loff wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 01:07:00PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: * Atanas Vladimirov [2014-09-16 12:58]: > As I said this was my working pf.conf for new queueing system on i386. > I think that the problem is elsew

Re: pf queue max bug

On 16.09.2014 19:32, Zé Loff wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 01:07:00PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: * Atanas Vladimirov [2014-09-16 12:58]: > As I said this was my working pf.conf for new queueing system on i386. > I think that the problem is elsewhere. When you set the queue max bandwidth > it

Re: pf queue max bug

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 01:07:00PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > * Atanas Vladimirov [2014-09-16 12:58]: > > As I said this was my working pf.conf for new queueing system on i386. > > I think that the problem is elsewhere. When you set the queue max bandwidth > > it must not exceed that value. >

Re: pf queue max bug

* Atanas Vladimirov [2014-09-16 12:58]: > As I said this was my working pf.conf for new queueing system on i386. > I think that the problem is elsewhere. When you set the queue max bandwidth > it must not exceed that value. if the sums of the target bandwidth exceed interface speed or min/target

Re: pf queue max bug

On 16.09.2014 12:36, Zé Loff wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:20:34AM +0300, Atanas Vladimirov wrote: Hi, I moved my old "server" to a better hardware and I installed amd64 -current (old one was i386 following -current) and made a drop in replacement of pf.conf. The problem is that when I se

Re: pf queue max bug

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:36:21AM +0100, Zé Loff wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:20:34AM +0300, Atanas Vladimirov wrote: > > Hi, > > I moved my old "server" to a better hardware and I installed amd64 -current > > (old one was i386 following -current) and made a drop in replacement of > > pf.co

Re: pf queue max bug

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:20:34AM +0300, Atanas Vladimirov wrote: > Hi, > I moved my old "server" to a better hardware and I installed amd64 -current > (old one was i386 following -current) and made a drop in replacement of > pf.conf. > The problem is that when I set a queue MAX speed limit it did

pf queue max bug

Hi, I moved my old "server" to a better hardware and I installed amd64 -current (old one was i386 following -current) and made a drop in replacement of pf.conf. The problem is that when I set a queue MAX speed limit it didn't work as it should - for example b_bittor: pf.conf: queue rootq on

Re: pf queue priq and set prio

This all for test - to know how work queue priq and set prio. 15.6.2013 14:58:26 пользователь Stuart Henderson (s...@spacehopper.org) написал: I have re-ordered the email to make it easier to reply.. On 2013-06-15, Михаил Швецов wrote: > Please help me > > I have 2 pf.conf files on the server

Re: pf queue priq and set prio

I have re-ordered the email to make it easier to reply.. On 2013-06-15, Михаил Швецов wrote: > Please help me > > I have 2 pf.conf files on the server. To example i exec > > ifconfig $int_if(em0) media 10baseT > > 1) > set skip on lo > altq on $int_if priq bandwidth 512Kb queue { qlan_ssh, qlan_d

pf queue priq and set prio

Please help me I have 2 pf.conf files on the server. To example i exec ifconfig $int_if(em0) media 10baseT 1) set skip on lo altq on $int_if priq bandwidth 512Kb queue { qlan_ssh, qlan_def } queue qlan_ssh priority 1 queue qlan_def priority 5 priq (default) block pass out pass in on $int_

Re: Traffic through default pf queue

pftop's functionality is almost completely in systat these days. * Michel Blais [2011-10-17 19:36]: > I think it's could be possible with pftop. > > "Pftop is a small, curses-based utility for real-time display of active > states and rule statistics for pf, the packet filter >

Re: Traffic through default pf queue

Claudiu Pruna writes: > I have a question, could anyone give me an ideea how can I "see" (like > tcpdump or something) the traffic that is passing throught the default > queue of pf ? On OpenBSD, systat has a number of PF-related views worth exploring. For an overview of traffic by quee

Re: Traffic through default pf queue

I think it's could be possible with pftop. "Pftop is a small, curses-based utility for real-time display of active states and rule statistics for pf, the packet filter . for OpenBSD . Current release pftop-0.7, written and maintai

Re: Traffic through default pf queue

Use "pass log" and "tag TAGGED" in pf rules, then tcpdump -i pflog0 On 10/17/2011 02:40 PM, Claudiu Pruna wrote: Hi everyone, I have a question, could anyone give me an ideea how can I "see" (like tcpdump or something) the traffic that is passing throught the default queue of pf

Traffic through default pf queue

Hi everyone, I have a question, could anyone give me an ideea how can I "see" (like tcpdump or something) the traffic that is passing throught the default queue of pf ? Thanks for your ideeas. -- Claudiu Pruna

PF queue speed bug??

Hello, I am using OpenBSD for a long time now, but recenty when I was testing hi speed queues using altq and cbq i saw there is strange problem. When queue is set to: a) 5 mbit, trasfer rate between 2 computers is around 5mbit -> OK b) 90 mbit, trasfer rate between 2 computers is around 90mbit

PF: Queue parsing problem ?

Hello, I'm setting up some queue discipline on one firewall, and I'm facing a strange problem: the rules aren't assigning the packets to the correct queue. As you can see below, they are going to inexistent qids, and are ending in default queues. I use this setup with assymetrical links, and it h

Re: PF Queue on a GROUP of nics?

On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 16:39 +1100, Sunnz wrote: > Is it possible? > > Say I have a few nics of the same group... dc0 dc1 dc2 dc3... which > all belong to a group "dc". Sunnz Do you mean a "shared queue" where "downstream" bandwidth from a single "upstream" interface is proportionally divided int

Re: PF Queue on a GROUP of nics?

* Sunnz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-06 16:59]: > Ahhh ok... so what do I need to do this, write lots of code :) > group, bridge, or something else? bridge doesn't have queues either. that is just not how it works. one still had to play the delay/drop games on the physical interfaces (that have

Re: PF Queue on a GROUP of nics?

Ahhh ok... so what do I need to do this, group, bridge, or something else? 2008/10/7 Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > * Sunnz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-06 07:44]: >> Is it possible? > > no. groups don't have any queues to play queue tricks on. > > -- > Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [E

Re: PF Queue on a GROUP of nics?

* Sunnz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-06 07:44]: > Is it possible? no. groups don't have any queues to play queue tricks on. -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootserv

Re: PF Queue on a GROUP of nics?

2008/10/6 Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > No need to add a bridge. > > You are looking for ifconfig(8). Look for interface groups and you are > done. > > -Girish > > Oh, so just apply altq rules to the appropieate group and it will work? That sounds great!! Thanks!! -- This e-mail m

Re: PF Queue on a GROUP of nics?

On 16:39:30 Oct 06, Sunnz wrote: > Is it possible? > > Say I have a few nics of the same group... dc0 dc1 dc2 dc3... which > all belong to a group "dc". > > And say if I wanted to limit the overall bandwidth for the group... so > say at any point in time the overall outgoing bandwidth of the grou

PF Queue on a GROUP of nics?

Is it possible? Say I have a few nics of the same group... dc0 dc1 dc2 dc3... which all belong to a group "dc". And say if I wanted to limit the overall bandwidth for the group... so say at any point in time the overall outgoing bandwidth of the group dc will not be over 100mbp. Would it work if

Re: pf - queue filter directive sticky?

* (private) HKS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-30 22:34]: > Thanks, I overlooked that a default queue was required. With that in > mind, then, does this section of pf.conf(5) imply that the queue > directive is sticky? pf.conf doesn't say it would be sticky anywhere, and, surprise, it isn't. -- He

Re: pf - queue filter directive sticky?

> from pf.conf man page: > > default Packets not matched by another queue are assigned to this > one. Exactly one default queue is *required.* Thanks, I overlooked that a default queue was required. With that in mind, then, does this section of pf.conf(5) imply that the queue

Re: pf - queue filter directive sticky?

(private) HKS escreveu: >>> imho normally this packet wouldn't be queued because the last count >>> matches the packet so the last rule applies: >>> > > This is what I assumed at first, but the stickiness of tags and the > (seeming) logic of doing the same with queues made me second-guess >

Re: pf - queue filter directive sticky?

Why you just not use "quick" in the first rule? pass in quick on $int_if from 10.0.0.1 queue tens pass in on $int_if Rosen (private) HKS wrote, On 9/29/2008 1:29 PM: If the following two rules apply to a given packet in the order shown, will the packet be queued? pass in on $int_if from 10.0.

Re: pf - queue filter directive sticky?

>> imho normally this packet wouldn't be queued because the last count >> matches the packet so the last rule applies: This is what I assumed at first, but the stickiness of tags and the (seeming) logic of doing the same with queues made me second-guess myself. > on the other hand: > > "During t

Re: pf - queue filter directive sticky?

Am Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:53:05 +0200 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Am Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:29:08 -0400 > schrieb "(private) HKS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > If the following two rules apply to a given packet in the order > > shown, will the packet be queued? > > > > pass in on $int_if from 10.0.0.1 qu

Re: pf - queue filter directive sticky?

Am Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:29:08 -0400 schrieb "(private) HKS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If the following two rules apply to a given packet in the order shown, > will the packet be queued? > > pass in on $int_if from 10.0.0.1 queue tens > pass in on $int_if > > I've not been able to find a clear answer i

pf - queue filter directive sticky?

If the following two rules apply to a given packet in the order shown, will the packet be queued? pass in on $int_if from 10.0.0.1 queue tens pass in on $int_if I've not been able to find a clear answer in pf.conf(5) or the online PF documentation. If I overlooked it, please let me know. Thanks i

pf+queue+pass in+statfeful out

I know queuing only applies to outbound traffic. I'm using "ssh -w" tunnelling to the pf+gateway. I, therefore, have pass in on #ext_if inet proto tcp ... keep state queue (QSHH, QLOWLAT), which, if I understand correctly, should assign the stateful reply/return (outbound) traffic be queued on

mclpool limit reached - pf queue dropping

Hello everyone. I'm seeing the mclpool limit reached error. I'm intending on replacing a transparent firewall running OpenBSD3.6 with one running 4.2, and in the testing phase I've noticed an interesting problem. The intention is to have traffic coming in on interface A (trunk0 - bge0 and bge1 loa

Re: pf queue skipping

On Aug 23, 2006, at 7:26 AM, Lawrence Horvath wrote: Yes it says its only "useful" for outbound, that doesnt mean that it shoudnt still try to queue inbound, which it does sorta do as per my pfctl -vvs queue, however it skips on parent queue for some reason Try reading the entire paragraph. -

Re: pf queue skipping

Yes it says its only "useful" for outbound, that doesnt mean that it shoudnt still try to queue inbound, which it does sorta do as per my pfctl -vvs queue, however it skips on parent queue for some reason On 8/23/06, Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Aug 23, 2006, at 6:28 AM, Lawrence Ho

Re: pf queue monitoring

On 23/08/06, Julien TOUCHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > tony sarendal wrote on 22/08/2006 08:32: > > I wrote a script to generate graphs for the queues using python and > > rrdtool a while back when I needed it, although it only works with > > CBQ. http://www.prefixmaster.com/eyeonpf.php > > > >

Re: pf queue skipping

On Aug 23, 2006, at 6:28 AM, Lawrence Horvath wrote: I have the following config for my pf.conf and i noticed that nothing shows in the queues for incomming: at this time i was transfering files into the server and it was not showing in the incomming queues, not sure why, i know its hard to "

pf queue skipping

I have the following config for my pf.conf and i noticed that nothing shows in the queues for incomming: ##BEGIN_QUEUES## altq on tl0 cbq bandwidth 3000Kb qlimit 200 queue { traffic_out, traffic_in } queue traffic_out bandwidth 1500Kb qlimit 200 cbq { \ other_out, ssh_out, ftp_data_out,

Re: pf queue monitoring

On 23/08/06, tony sarendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 23/08/06, Julien TOUCHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > tony sarendal wrote on 22/08/2006 08:32: > > > I wrote a script to generate graphs for the queues using python and > > > rrdtool a while back when I needed it, although it onl

Re: pf queue monitoring

On 23/08/06, Julien TOUCHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > tony sarendal wrote on 22/08/2006 08:32: > > I wrote a script to generate graphs for the queues using python and > > rrdtool a while back when I needed it, although it only works with > > CBQ. http://www.prefixmaster.com/eyeonpf.php > > > >

Re: pf queue monitoring

tony sarendal wrote on 22/08/2006 08:32: > I wrote a script to generate graphs for the queues using python and > rrdtool a while back when I needed it, although it only works with > CBQ. http://www.prefixmaster.com/eyeonpf.php > awesome tool. i try it yesterday evening and it is really simple t

Re: pf queue monitoring

On 22/08/06, Michal Soltys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lawrence Horvath wrote: > > Is there a way to monitor how much traffic is passing through a queue in > > bps? > > I wrote a script to generate graphs for the queues using python and rrdtool a while back when I needed it, although it only wor

Re: pf queue monitoring

Lawrence Horvath wrote: Is there a way to monitor how much traffic is passing through a queue in bps? Besides pfctl -vvsq, try pftop from ports - it's great pf monitor, similar in use to top.

Re: pf queue monitoring

On 8/21/06, Lawrence Horvath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there a way to monitor how much traffic is passing through a queue in bps? Im using 'pfctl -s queue -v' but it seems to only show a running total of packets and bits that have passed through it, and i want to be able to see it in bps anyo

pf queue monitoring

Is there a way to monitor how much traffic is passing through a queue in bps? Im using 'pfctl -s queue -v' but it seems to only show a running total of packets and bits that have passed through it, and i want to be able to see it in bps anyone know of a way to do this? # uname -a OpenBSD localhos

Re: pf queue

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:00:17PM -0500, Axton wrote: > Is there a capability with pf to send packets to userspace for > handling/manipulation, whereby they can be returned back to the > kernel, similar to the queue facilities available in iptables? > no. but for IP-based connections you could

pf queue

Is there a capability with pf to send packets to userspace for handling/manipulation, whereby they can be returned back to the kernel, similar to the queue facilities available in iptables? Axton

Re: PF Queue problem

On Friday 18 of November 2005 16:58, knitti wrote: > I don't know valknut (or the DirectConnect protocol), but if it is > similiar to other p2p filesharing protocols, then you do also uploads > on your outbound connection, e.g. if you connect to another host, and > this host happens to want somethi

Re: PF Queue problem

I don't know valknut (or the DirectConnect protocol), but if it is similiar to other p2p filesharing protocols, then you do also uploads on your outbound connection, e.g. if you connect to another host, and this host happens to want something from you, you will upload it over your outbound connecti

PF Queue problem

Below is the snippet from my pf.conf with all relevant rules (i can paste the whole thing, just thought this will be easier to read). The problem: when i start the program, the traffic from it gets properly queued as q_p2p_low. But after a while (10-20 minutes i think) it moves to q_def. Applica