[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6

To: "Vladimir B. Savkin" <master@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 31 Jan 2004 16:49:24 -0500
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040131213236.GA3451@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolis
References: <20040126001102.GA12303@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1075086588.1732.221.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040126093230.GA17811@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1075124312.1732.292.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040126135545.GA19497@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1075127396.1746.370.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040131185231.GA2608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1075580812.1035.83.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040131205326.GA3089@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1075584318.1033.159.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040131213236.GA3451@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 2004-01-31 at 16:32, Vladimir B. Savkin wrote:

> Yes, if you define "flow" as all traffic to one client.
> Actually, I use two-level hierarchy: in every flow in above sense
> each micro-flow receives a fair amount of bandwidth (approximatly,
> using sfq).


> > [This can only be achieved by a non-work conserving scheduler].
> Yes.

Still a few rough edges, so bear with me:
Would you not be able to achieve the same if you used the marking scheme
i described earlier on eth0 and used HTB or HFSC or CBQ (as non-work
conserving) on eth1/2? I was suggesting prio before and you pointed you
the queues will never be full for that to have any value. 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>