Confirm and/or remove a possible traffic shaping setting

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I have a Debian box up and running with KVM and two guest machines, which I will refer here as Tux-A and Tux-B, both bind to the same physical network card of the Host via a bridged connection.



The problem is that Tux-A shows evidences of some sort of bandwidth limit uploading to the outer network:



  • upload from Tux-A to ip on same Private Network = 45Mb/sec

  • upload from Tux-A to ip on outer Public Network = 150Kb/sec

  • upload from Tux-B to ip on same Private Network = 45Mb/sec

  • upload from Tux-B to ip on outer Public Network = 3Mb/sec

given these values I presume that:



  • no limit is set on top via KVM to the upload bandwidth (otherwise Tux-B should also be slow uploading to public network)

  • no limit is set on top of Tux-A (otherwise Tux-A should also be slow uploading to private network)

just to complete the scenario:



  • no iptables is active on the Debian host nor Tux-A (double checked and on both machines the services are disabled)

  • no other specific service in terms of traffic shaping is active on both the Debian host and Tux-A (no tc, no shorewall, no KVM parameters tweaking, nothing)

  • the router that connects to outer network is (said to be) uncapable of any form of traffic shaping (and I have no evidence of that capability in the admin area)

So in my (very very humble) opinion, if it's something set directly on Tux-A, and if on Linux everything is a file, is there somewhere among Linux's system files where this kind of limit can be set? somewhere in /proc, /sys, or such? or can someone suggest some other way to solve this situation?







share|improve this question

























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    I have a Debian box up and running with KVM and two guest machines, which I will refer here as Tux-A and Tux-B, both bind to the same physical network card of the Host via a bridged connection.



    The problem is that Tux-A shows evidences of some sort of bandwidth limit uploading to the outer network:



    • upload from Tux-A to ip on same Private Network = 45Mb/sec

    • upload from Tux-A to ip on outer Public Network = 150Kb/sec

    • upload from Tux-B to ip on same Private Network = 45Mb/sec

    • upload from Tux-B to ip on outer Public Network = 3Mb/sec

    given these values I presume that:



    • no limit is set on top via KVM to the upload bandwidth (otherwise Tux-B should also be slow uploading to public network)

    • no limit is set on top of Tux-A (otherwise Tux-A should also be slow uploading to private network)

    just to complete the scenario:



    • no iptables is active on the Debian host nor Tux-A (double checked and on both machines the services are disabled)

    • no other specific service in terms of traffic shaping is active on both the Debian host and Tux-A (no tc, no shorewall, no KVM parameters tweaking, nothing)

    • the router that connects to outer network is (said to be) uncapable of any form of traffic shaping (and I have no evidence of that capability in the admin area)

    So in my (very very humble) opinion, if it's something set directly on Tux-A, and if on Linux everything is a file, is there somewhere among Linux's system files where this kind of limit can be set? somewhere in /proc, /sys, or such? or can someone suggest some other way to solve this situation?







    share|improve this question





















      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      I have a Debian box up and running with KVM and two guest machines, which I will refer here as Tux-A and Tux-B, both bind to the same physical network card of the Host via a bridged connection.



      The problem is that Tux-A shows evidences of some sort of bandwidth limit uploading to the outer network:



      • upload from Tux-A to ip on same Private Network = 45Mb/sec

      • upload from Tux-A to ip on outer Public Network = 150Kb/sec

      • upload from Tux-B to ip on same Private Network = 45Mb/sec

      • upload from Tux-B to ip on outer Public Network = 3Mb/sec

      given these values I presume that:



      • no limit is set on top via KVM to the upload bandwidth (otherwise Tux-B should also be slow uploading to public network)

      • no limit is set on top of Tux-A (otherwise Tux-A should also be slow uploading to private network)

      just to complete the scenario:



      • no iptables is active on the Debian host nor Tux-A (double checked and on both machines the services are disabled)

      • no other specific service in terms of traffic shaping is active on both the Debian host and Tux-A (no tc, no shorewall, no KVM parameters tweaking, nothing)

      • the router that connects to outer network is (said to be) uncapable of any form of traffic shaping (and I have no evidence of that capability in the admin area)

      So in my (very very humble) opinion, if it's something set directly on Tux-A, and if on Linux everything is a file, is there somewhere among Linux's system files where this kind of limit can be set? somewhere in /proc, /sys, or such? or can someone suggest some other way to solve this situation?







      share|improve this question











      I have a Debian box up and running with KVM and two guest machines, which I will refer here as Tux-A and Tux-B, both bind to the same physical network card of the Host via a bridged connection.



      The problem is that Tux-A shows evidences of some sort of bandwidth limit uploading to the outer network:



      • upload from Tux-A to ip on same Private Network = 45Mb/sec

      • upload from Tux-A to ip on outer Public Network = 150Kb/sec

      • upload from Tux-B to ip on same Private Network = 45Mb/sec

      • upload from Tux-B to ip on outer Public Network = 3Mb/sec

      given these values I presume that:



      • no limit is set on top via KVM to the upload bandwidth (otherwise Tux-B should also be slow uploading to public network)

      • no limit is set on top of Tux-A (otherwise Tux-A should also be slow uploading to private network)

      just to complete the scenario:



      • no iptables is active on the Debian host nor Tux-A (double checked and on both machines the services are disabled)

      • no other specific service in terms of traffic shaping is active on both the Debian host and Tux-A (no tc, no shorewall, no KVM parameters tweaking, nothing)

      • the router that connects to outer network is (said to be) uncapable of any form of traffic shaping (and I have no evidence of that capability in the admin area)

      So in my (very very humble) opinion, if it's something set directly on Tux-A, and if on Linux everything is a file, is there somewhere among Linux's system files where this kind of limit can be set? somewhere in /proc, /sys, or such? or can someone suggest some other way to solve this situation?









      share|improve this question










      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question









      asked Jul 27 at 19:31









      funkoolow

      458




      458




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          It is not probably traffic shapping.



          A emulated VM is not able to generated too much traffic if the NIC is emulated instead of paravirtualized. (like 10 times less traffic when emulated)



          Install the virtIO driver and select a virtio card on the slowest machine.






          share|improve this answer





















          • I'll try your suggestion, but how do you explain that uploading from Tux-A to local network goes full speed? and also why Tux-B does not suffer the same problem (while being configured the same way as Tux-A with no virtio card)?
            – funkoolow
            Jul 29 at 14:21










          • Lots of unknown variables here. Obviously, knowing your network I cannot comment, however I do have seen up to a 10x improvement in the past in some situations. Nevertheless, as you are confirming you are not using paravirtualized interfaces, I do advise it, as besides possible performance improvements, you are saving CPU load. Mind you that it would be more interesting commenting after trying it and not before.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            Jul 29 at 17:14











          Your Answer







          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "106"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );








           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f458939%2fconfirm-and-or-remove-a-possible-traffic-shaping-setting%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote













          It is not probably traffic shapping.



          A emulated VM is not able to generated too much traffic if the NIC is emulated instead of paravirtualized. (like 10 times less traffic when emulated)



          Install the virtIO driver and select a virtio card on the slowest machine.






          share|improve this answer





















          • I'll try your suggestion, but how do you explain that uploading from Tux-A to local network goes full speed? and also why Tux-B does not suffer the same problem (while being configured the same way as Tux-A with no virtio card)?
            – funkoolow
            Jul 29 at 14:21










          • Lots of unknown variables here. Obviously, knowing your network I cannot comment, however I do have seen up to a 10x improvement in the past in some situations. Nevertheless, as you are confirming you are not using paravirtualized interfaces, I do advise it, as besides possible performance improvements, you are saving CPU load. Mind you that it would be more interesting commenting after trying it and not before.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            Jul 29 at 17:14















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          It is not probably traffic shapping.



          A emulated VM is not able to generated too much traffic if the NIC is emulated instead of paravirtualized. (like 10 times less traffic when emulated)



          Install the virtIO driver and select a virtio card on the slowest machine.






          share|improve this answer





















          • I'll try your suggestion, but how do you explain that uploading from Tux-A to local network goes full speed? and also why Tux-B does not suffer the same problem (while being configured the same way as Tux-A with no virtio card)?
            – funkoolow
            Jul 29 at 14:21










          • Lots of unknown variables here. Obviously, knowing your network I cannot comment, however I do have seen up to a 10x improvement in the past in some situations. Nevertheless, as you are confirming you are not using paravirtualized interfaces, I do advise it, as besides possible performance improvements, you are saving CPU load. Mind you that it would be more interesting commenting after trying it and not before.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            Jul 29 at 17:14













          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          It is not probably traffic shapping.



          A emulated VM is not able to generated too much traffic if the NIC is emulated instead of paravirtualized. (like 10 times less traffic when emulated)



          Install the virtIO driver and select a virtio card on the slowest machine.






          share|improve this answer













          It is not probably traffic shapping.



          A emulated VM is not able to generated too much traffic if the NIC is emulated instead of paravirtualized. (like 10 times less traffic when emulated)



          Install the virtIO driver and select a virtio card on the slowest machine.







          share|improve this answer













          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer











          answered Jul 27 at 19:48









          Rui F Ribeiro

          33.6k1168113




          33.6k1168113











          • I'll try your suggestion, but how do you explain that uploading from Tux-A to local network goes full speed? and also why Tux-B does not suffer the same problem (while being configured the same way as Tux-A with no virtio card)?
            – funkoolow
            Jul 29 at 14:21










          • Lots of unknown variables here. Obviously, knowing your network I cannot comment, however I do have seen up to a 10x improvement in the past in some situations. Nevertheless, as you are confirming you are not using paravirtualized interfaces, I do advise it, as besides possible performance improvements, you are saving CPU load. Mind you that it would be more interesting commenting after trying it and not before.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            Jul 29 at 17:14

















          • I'll try your suggestion, but how do you explain that uploading from Tux-A to local network goes full speed? and also why Tux-B does not suffer the same problem (while being configured the same way as Tux-A with no virtio card)?
            – funkoolow
            Jul 29 at 14:21










          • Lots of unknown variables here. Obviously, knowing your network I cannot comment, however I do have seen up to a 10x improvement in the past in some situations. Nevertheless, as you are confirming you are not using paravirtualized interfaces, I do advise it, as besides possible performance improvements, you are saving CPU load. Mind you that it would be more interesting commenting after trying it and not before.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            Jul 29 at 17:14
















          I'll try your suggestion, but how do you explain that uploading from Tux-A to local network goes full speed? and also why Tux-B does not suffer the same problem (while being configured the same way as Tux-A with no virtio card)?
          – funkoolow
          Jul 29 at 14:21




          I'll try your suggestion, but how do you explain that uploading from Tux-A to local network goes full speed? and also why Tux-B does not suffer the same problem (while being configured the same way as Tux-A with no virtio card)?
          – funkoolow
          Jul 29 at 14:21












          Lots of unknown variables here. Obviously, knowing your network I cannot comment, however I do have seen up to a 10x improvement in the past in some situations. Nevertheless, as you are confirming you are not using paravirtualized interfaces, I do advise it, as besides possible performance improvements, you are saving CPU load. Mind you that it would be more interesting commenting after trying it and not before.
          – Rui F Ribeiro
          Jul 29 at 17:14





          Lots of unknown variables here. Obviously, knowing your network I cannot comment, however I do have seen up to a 10x improvement in the past in some situations. Nevertheless, as you are confirming you are not using paravirtualized interfaces, I do advise it, as besides possible performance improvements, you are saving CPU load. Mind you that it would be more interesting commenting after trying it and not before.
          – Rui F Ribeiro
          Jul 29 at 17:14













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f458939%2fconfirm-and-or-remove-a-possible-traffic-shaping-setting%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

          How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?