Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\]\s+batched\s+tc\s+to\s+improve\s+change\s+throughput\s*$/: 88 ]

Total 88 documents matching your query.

41. : skb_checksum_help (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: 24 Jan 2005 09:13:26 -0500
ipq_kill: What about modules, .conf
/archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01057.html (14,998 bytes)

42. lp (score: 1)
Author: id@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:06:34 +0100
ump to the /24 we were seeing traff
/archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01062.html (13,708 bytes)

43. stop_queue (score: 1)
Author: azunori@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 26 Jan 2005 08:48:33 -0500
depth (perhaps per-CPU as you sugges
/archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01162.html (14,405 bytes)

44. FC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: rbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:35:45 +0100
ek and others. ftp://robur.slu.se/p
/archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01163.html (14,983 bytes)

45. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Dan Siemon <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:07:26 -0500
(Sorry to join this thread so late.) I'd like to make a little plug for my Linux QoS Library (LQL) [1] project. LQL provides an abstraction of the kernel QoS features. Full API documentation is avail
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01401.html (11,691 bytes)

46. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12 Feb 2005 08:45:23 -0500
On first impression, this looks very nice - I think you got the object hierachy figured etc; i will look closely later. What would be really interesting is to see (gulp) a SOAP/xml interface on top o
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01439.html (12,969 bytes)

47. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:29:43 +0100
I've been looking at this before and I do like your approach. The license prevents me from really using it buts that's not your problem. What I really like about it are the bindings to other languag
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01441.html (12,856 bytes)

48. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Dan Siemon <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:07:13 -0500
Yes, a SOAP/XML-RPC interface should be quite possible. This is one of the main reasons I went to the trouble of creating the Mono bindings. I need to create some sort of XML interface to LQL in the
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01460.html (12,088 bytes)

49. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:32:04 +0100
* Dan Siemon <1108246033.7554.18.camel@ganymede> 2005-02-12 17:07 Before you go ahead, please consider its possible usages. If possible it should conform to an existing format allowing for distribute
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01462.html (12,470 bytes)

50. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Dan Siemon <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:23:37 -0500
The initial implementation will be very specific to LQLs methods. I need this for a prototype application. I don't see how byte order issues are a problem when using SOAP. Example? My main design goa
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01478.html (13,713 bytes)

51. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:27:10 +0100
It depends on wehther your outline every qdisc/filter in the protocol. If you do so it's not a problem but you have to extend your protocol every time a new qdisc is introduced or an existing one ch
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01490.html (11,462 bytes)

52. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Dan Siemon <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:28:14 -0500
Perhaps we could agree on a single API for the low-level message parsing and netlink message construction. At least then we would not be duplicating bug-fixes in our netlink code. Whether or not this
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01527.html (11,821 bytes)

53. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:47:23 +0100
Sure, I think they're quite similiar. I abstracted the netlink message and routing attributes building a bit and added some bits for simplification. http://people.suug.ch/~tgr/libnl/doc/group__msg.h
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01530.html (12,116 bytes)

54. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Dan Siemon <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:40:40 -0500
Sorry, for the tardy response. That could be a problem. The GObject struct must be at the start so that all sub-classes can be operated on with the g_object_ functions. The only way to make these obj
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01825.html (11,902 bytes)

55. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:15:54 +0100
It's not a problem, as you note we can put the gobject information into NLHDR_COMMON. I'm not focusing on such bindings but if you want to reuse my code, feel free.
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01829.html (10,652 bytes)

56. [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:23:12 +0100
While collecting performance numbers for the ematch changes I realized that the throughput of changes per second is almost only limited by the cost of starting the tc binary over and over. In order t
/archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02201.html (9,041 bytes)

57. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 17 Jan 2005 10:45:11 -0500
You dont like the -batch option to tc? ;-> cheers, jamal
/archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02202.html (10,533 bytes)

58. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:05:39 +0100
* jamal <1105976711.1078.1.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-01-17 10:45 No, because: - it duplicates logic - it doesn't allow any commenting - it doesn't get along with my more complicated ematch parsing
/archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02203.html (9,159 bytes)

59. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 17 Jan 2005 11:36:47 -0500
Didnt follow this - uses the same code as command line. What logic gets duplicated? Trivial thing you can fix in about 33.5 seconds ;-> Example? cheers, jamal
/archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02204.html (10,062 bytes)

60. Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput (score: 1)
Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:56:26 +0100
* jamal <1105979807.1078.16.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-01-17 11:36 The parsing of top level nodes. Simple full-line comments yes, mid-line comments no. -batch is also not able to split things acros
/archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02205.html (11,017 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu