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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:35:38 +0200
From:	"Denys" <>
To:	Patrick McHardy <>
	Stephen Hemminger <>
Subject: Re: iproute2-2.6.20-070313 bug ?

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:23:01 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote
> Please don't remove CCs.
> Denys wrote:
> > 1024kb (if i am not wrong 1Mbyte) is huge?
> > 
> > For me it is ok, as soon as i have RAM.
> Its not about the memory, its about the resulting queueing delay.
> If you buffer packets for 64 seconds the sender will retransmit
> them and you end up wasting bandwidth.
> > Another thing, it is working well 
> > with old tc. Just really if i have plenty of RAM's and i want 32second 
> > buffer, why i cannot have that, and if i see it is really possible before?
> I know it worked before. But I can't think of a reason why anyone
> would want a buffer that large. Why do you want to queue packets
> for up to 64 seconds?
Seems i misunderstand how it works. If i am not wrong, till buffer available, 
bandwidth will be given on "peakrate" speed, and when buffer is empty - on 
"rate" speed. I am wrong?
At least it was working like this before.

Virtual ISP S.A.L.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists