Re: ftp-proxy upgrade instructions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ftp-proxy upgrade instructions

Moritz Grimm
(Moved from tech@ to misc@)

Camiel Dobbelaar wrote:
> ftp-proxy in -current has been replaced with a new one that was previously
> called pftpx.

Very nice, thanks! Works as expected and easier to use than the old one.

I have one issue, though, which I cannot seem be able to figure out on
my own.

Using the parameter ``-q "(q_med, q_pri)"'' does not result in any error
message, however, I have no proof whether this works or not. Actually,
my tests suggest that it does not what I want it to do -- my test
should've shown about 60-70 kb/s in the q_pri queue, but all it got was
some 1 kb/s trickling from some other states... not a very reliable way
of testing, though.

Is this supposed to work? If yes, what is the proper syntax?

Hm, and while I'm at it ... how can things like these be properly tested
and debugged in the first place? Other than making educated guesses with
pfctl -vvsq or pftop (which doesn't work well with HFSC, so it's no use
in my case), I have yet to figure out how to find out whether a state is
using a certain (set of) queue(s) or not.

Any insight appreciated a lot!


Thanks in advance,

Moritz

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ftp-proxy upgrade instructions

Moritz Grimm
Moritz Grimm wrote:
> Using the parameter ``-q "(q_med, q_pri)"'' does not result in any error
> message, however, I have no proof whether this works or not. Actually,
[...]
> Hm, and while I'm at it ... how can things like these be properly tested
> and debugged in the first place? Other than making educated guesses with
[...]

Replying to myself here ... I found out that I can get the rules
inserted by ftp-proxy with

pfctl -a ftp-proxy/xxxxx.y -vvsr

and it looks like the queue statements were accepted. However, the ACKs
definitely don't end up in q_pri but my default queue (q_def). I
compared that to what happens when i use "-q q_low", and indeed,
everything ends up there with only one queue name as the argument.

Now I'm just a bit confused, but at least I know that maybe, in theory,
it could work the way I want. :-)


Moritz

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ftp-proxy upgrade instructions

Camiel Dobbelaar
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Moritz Grimm wrote:

> Moritz Grimm wrote:
> > Using the parameter ``-q "(q_med, q_pri)"'' does not result in any error
> > message, however, I have no proof whether this works or not. Actually,
> [...]
> > Hm, and while I'm at it ... how can things like these be properly tested and
> > debugged in the first place? Other than making educated guesses with
> [...]
>
> Replying to myself here ... I found out that I can get the rules inserted by
> ftp-proxy with
>
> pfctl -a ftp-proxy/xxxxx.y -vvsr
>
> and it looks like the queue statements were accepted. However, the ACKs
> definitely don't end up in q_pri but my default queue (q_def). I compared that
> to what happens when i use "-q q_low", and indeed, everything ends up there
> with only one queue name as the argument.
>
> Now I'm just a bit confused, but at least I know that maybe, in theory, it
> could work the way I want. :-)

Your testing is correct.  ftp-proxy does not understand the queue() syntax
like pfctl does, so only one queue name for now.


--
Cam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ftp-proxy upgrade instructions

Moritz Grimm
Camiel Dobbelaar wrote:
>>>Using the parameter ``-q "(q_med, q_pri)"'' does not result in any error

> Your testing is correct.  ftp-proxy does not understand the queue() syntax
> like pfctl does, so only one queue name for now.

I understand it now ... the literal "(q_med, p_pri)" is not the same as
(q_med, q_pri). Argh, I tricked myself good -- pfctl output looked
almost perfect, if it weren't for the seemingly misplaced whitespace I
overlooked. ;P


Moritz