netdev - Re: tc filter mask for ACK packets off?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 03 Jan 2012 07:45:16 -0500
From:	"John A. Sullivan III" <jsullivan@...nsourcedevel.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>,
	Michal Kubeček <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tc filter mask for ACK packets off?

On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 13:32 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 03 janvier 2012 à 07:18 -0500, John A. Sullivan III a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 10:36 +0100, Dave Taht wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > I'd go into more detail, but after what I hope are the final two
> > > fixes to sfq and qfq land in the net-next kernel (after some more
> > > testing), I like to think I have a more valid approach than this
> > > in the works, but that too will require some more development
> > > and testing.
> > > 
> > > http://www.teklibre.com/~d/bloat/pfifo_fast_vs_sfq_qfq_linear.png
> > > 
> > <snip>
> > Hmmm . . . certainly shattered my concerns about replacing pfifo_fast
> > with SFQ! Thanks - John
> 
> Before you do, take the time to read the warning in sfq source :
> 
> 
> 	ADVANTAGE:
> 
> 	- It is very cheap. Both CPU and memory requirements are minimal.
> 
> 	DRAWBACKS:
> 
> 	- "Stochastic" -> It is not 100% fair.
> 	When hash collisions occur, several flows are considered as one.
> 
> 	- "Round-robin" -> It introduces larger delays than virtual clock
> 	based schemes, and should not be used for isolating interactive
> 	traffic	from non-interactive. It means, that this scheduler
> 	should be used as leaf of CBQ or P3, which put interactive traffic
> 	to higher priority band.
> 
> 
> SFQ (as a direct replacement of dev root qdisc) is fine if most of your trafic
> is of same kind/priority.
> 
> 
> 
Yes, I suppose I should have been more specific, replacing pfifo_fast
when I am using something else to prioritize and shape my traffic like
HFSC.  Hmm . . . although I still wonder about iSCSI SANs . . .   Thanks
- John

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html