From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout-p-102.mailbox.org (mout-p-102.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050::465:102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B52E3B2A4 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 01:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:105:465:1:1:0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-102.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 497jtB2LJjzKml1; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:49:38 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.240]) by hefe.heinlein-support.de (hefe.heinlein-support.de [91.198.250.172]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id 9_8Z0lt_eCx0; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:49:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:49:32 +0200 From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer To: Matt Taggart Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: <20200424054932.GA3180192@laniakea> References: <5a1f165e-9d0e-af9b-5be2-15d805cfa0b5@lackof.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5a1f165e-9d0e-af9b-5be2-15d805cfa0b5@lackof.org> X-Key-Id: 98350C22 X-Key-Fingerprint: 490F 557B 6C48 6D7E 5706 2EA2 4A22 8D45 9835 0C22 X-GPG-Key: gpg --recv-keys --keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net 98350C22 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 09DF71782 X-Rspamd-Score: -0.94 / 15.00 / 15.00 Subject: Re: [Bloat] ubuntu 20.4 is out X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:49:39 -0000 * Matt Taggart | 2020-04-23 15:47:19 [-0700]: >https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=890343#34 > >If you have anything to add concernting changing this (or other defaults) >please mail that bug. Let's get Debian up to date! +1 Yes Dave, I think it's time to boost this bug report. Can you give your comments and objections to the use of fifo fast? I think a little bit pressure here and there and you will finally make many Debian users happier! ;-) I don't know if the discussion will arise that fq_codel will not be the perfect fit for everybody, thus the use of "safer pfifo_fast". I think we should take care of the average user, professionals using Debian already know what to configure and how - here we should focus on the average user (Laptop, Desktop). hgn