Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6

[jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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).

Ok. 

> > [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. 

cheers,
jamal