From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 337C43CB43 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 14:22:07 -0500 (EST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1516476126; bh=6mBtLM9KKfDVDGaNelZl04mAjZGhFcS+Ky4y7qR4x3g=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=AK5TVKAEPhncYhkYLgKDSLL4YG/e7SdtFD6qpIt8+eknBvR/INVmGe69xRn4MFoqM MME1xfuUDMJlZNqYEjNIXn/pA+hRe7lpEyBJHS8T27jbUIOUpiOfud7WFCSURRhOPM MwCPGInxvp2BCYdRH3610zsIiuyf28UQGZYkb3YsYMhtUoCdAyGaY42Cz/j6LWRybU xSdy1wcbBGyQ3cd+ihDnACuuaSZLVt2gO2iyPC8anJTBKcXGgsPENG/LDtYG86rokn Jnn6UAo7Y/zBZFE0NcWDwXXwbErAcT4kkhWy60hcYodp8h9otXRuAceamDmNushR5N 8tbvLqI9ltnMw== To: dag dg Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: References: <877esc2z5d.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:22:05 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <8737302v4y.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Bloat] Need Guidance on reducing bufferbloat on a Fedora-based router 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: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 19:22:07 -0000 (Adding the bloat list back as CC) > Well there are two things that are bothering me. The first is that I've > gone from 8 queues down to just 3 excluding the ingress queue and I just > can't shake this feeling that there's got to be a better way to go about > things. Well, software shaping interacts badly with multiple hardware queues. If you need the software shaper (whether that is Cake or HTB), you can't also have multiple independent hardware queues. The shaper needs global state for the shaped link, so you would have to synchronise across queues anyway, even if it was supported by the shaper. Besides, on the box you're running, you probably don't need the large number of hardware queues to push 1 Gbps... So unless you are seeing a specific performance problem I wouldn't worry too much about it :) -Toke