From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from p-mail1.rd.orange.com (p-mail1.rd.orange.com [195.101.245.15]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AEE21F151 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 23:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail1.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id EFA1441027E; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:45:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail1.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E431641021F; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:45:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:45:12 +0200 Received: from [10.193.161.45] ([10.193.161.45]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:45:12 +0200 Message-ID: <52048FF7.8040200@orange.com> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:45:11 +0200 From: MUSCARIELLO Luca OLNC/OLN User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130804 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luigi Rizzo References: <20130808084920.7ebc306d@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020502040405090102040609" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2013 06:45:12.0296 (UTC) FILETIME=[FF4EF680:01CE94CB] Cc: paolo.valente@unimore.it, bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Fw: video about QFQ+ and DRR X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: MUSCARIELLO Luca OLNC/OLN List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 06:45:16 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020502040405090102040609 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 --------------020502040405090102040609 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 <stephen@networkplumber.org> 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

--------------020502040405090102040609--