[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1325593951.2320.40.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:32:31 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: "John A. Sullivan III" <jsullivan@...nsourcedevel.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?
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.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists