[Bloat] Other CAKE territory (was: CAKE in openwrt high CPU)

[David Collier-Brown <davecb.42@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1291 bytes --]

On 2020-09-03 10:32 a.m., Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via Bloat wrote

> Yeah, offloading of some sort is another option, but I consider that
> outside of the "CAKE stays relevant" territory, since that will most
> likely involve an entirely programmable packet scheduler. There was some
> discussion of adding such a qdisc to Linux at LPC[0]. The Eiffel[1]
> algorithm seems promising.
>
> -Toke

I'm wondering if edge servers with 1Gb NICs are inside the "CAKE stays 
relevant" territory?

My main customer/employer has a gazillion of those, currently reporting

**

*qdisc mq 0: root*

*

qdisc pfifo_fast 0: parent :8 bands 3 priomap 1 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1

...

*

because their OS is just a tiny bit elderly (;-)). We we're planning to 
roll forward this quarter to centos 8.2, where CAKE is an option.

It strikes me that the self-tuning capacity of CAKE might be valuable 
for a whole /class/ of small rack-mounted machines, but you just 
mentioned the desire for better multi-processor support.

Am I reaching for the moon, or is this something within reach?

--dave

-- 

-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3003 bytes --]