Hi, nice demo. While I am not surprised about the good performance of QFQ+, I do not understand why DRR (I guess linux SFQ, i.e. per-flow DRR+SQdrop) works so bad. If the two schedulers are serving the same kind of flow (IP 5-tuple) the level of protection to low rate (< fair rate) flows should be the same (approx). Maybe Paolo said that in the talk and I might have missed something. Is QFQ+ working on a different definition of flow than DRR?, and is DRR Linux SFQ? Luca On 08/08/2013 06:09 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > very nice and convincing demo. > > good job paolo! > > luigi > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Stephen Hemminger > > wrote: > > Thought this might be interesting to this list. > --- > From: Paolo Valente > > Hi, > I just uploaded the following 7-minute video showing the QoS and > the execution time of QFQ+, compared to those of DRR: > http://youtu.be/bG2ACt4na7A > > I would like to advertise this video. If I may ask for your help, > do you think that linux-kernel, linux-net or linux-netdev may be > appropriate? > Any other suggestion is more than welcome. > > Thanks, > Paolo > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > > > > > -- > -----------------------------------------+------------------------------- > Prof. Luigi RIZZO, rizzo@iet.unipi.it . > Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione > http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ > . Universita` di Pisa > TEL +39-050-2211611 . via Diotisalvi 2 > Mobile +39-338-6809875 . 56122 PISA (Italy) > -----------------------------------------+------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat