We have already developed a better solution. I was just trying to save the
guy time trying to do something that probably can't be done with the tools
he's using.
Dennis
www.etinc.com
At 08:44 AM 09/08/2000 -0400, jamal wrote:
>
>On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Dennis wrote:
>
>> At 03:53 PM 09/07/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>> >
>> >[stuff about inefficiencies of CBQ deleted]
>> >
>> >Denis, can you provide substantial proof of what you claim?
>>
>> Read the studies, its an inherent property of the technique. Its a
>> round-robin deal, and the larger the robin, the less efficient the round
>> Only the highest priority traffic is guaranteed its slice...everything else
>> suffers as the number of queues increase.
>
>Is this a problem, or a simple Operating design trade-off? There are many
>queues implies there is more overhead in the RR. There are many flows
>implies you use more RAM. This applies to _any_ scheduling algorithm
>in _any_ operating systems is not specific to CBQ being RR. FYI, Linux CBQ
>uses DRR.
>What was the other alternative that you were thinking of to replace
>RR schemes?
>
>> the 2 major pitfalls of cbq are:
>>
>> 1) unidirectional (outgoing) only
>
>Give me a reason as to why you want to shape inbound packets in a PC
>architecture. Actually give me a reason why you would want to do it in an
>architecture with a switched fabric.
>Policing inbound traffic, yes (and we already have it in Linux -- its
>called the ingress qdisc)
>Non work-conserving inbound shaping? please provide the rationale.
>[of course there are probably router vendors out there who would try to
>sell you what you just said because that is what their design dictates]
>
>> 2) inefficiencies increase with the number of streams/classes
>>
>
>Read my arguement above.
>
>FYI, there are many scheduling algorithms in Linux. You can take your pick
>and use what you like.
>
>
>cheers,
>jamal
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:29 EST