From: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk>
To: <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cake] basic cake
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:51:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5655F538.8060409@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <62B84B79-3092-480A-90D0-ED79955917D8@gmx.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1802 bytes --]
On 25/11/15 17:45, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 18:30 , Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 17:02 , Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last night I went about removing nearly every unproven "feature" that
>>>> has been added to cake since july, in part to establish a baseline for
>>>> a performance comparison directly against sqm-scripts with
>>>> htb+fq_codel, on low end hardware, and in part, to be able to test
>>>> each newer feature
>>>> more fully on the testbed.
>>> Oh, shiny, want have ;) So the plan is to assess the performance cost of each of the individual features to allow a better rationale to justify keeping or rejecting specific ones? Sounds like a excellent idea.
>> pithy note here:
>>
>> https://github.com/dtaht/bcake/commit/4b9e6035bfa0160fa3fdaddcf1722c1cf924afa9
> Oh, I am all for a) testing things properly before setting defaults, b) actually expose toggles for important parameters (toggles that better be followed, if I request "target 1 ms” I am fine with cake whining/complaining in the log, I am not fine with cake just (silently) doing what it thinks best; but we have been there before and I failed to convince enough people on that approach, so that boat has sailed and now instead of one cake with one toggle we have 2 cakes without toggles ;) (note I do like the implement and test one change at a time approach,))
>
https://github.com/kdarbyshirebryant/sch_cake/tree/copyparms - matching
tc with 'copytarget copyinterval' etc
https://github.com/kdarbyshirebryant/tc-adv/tree/copyparms
Works. Never got as far as devising a test let alone running it.
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4816 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-25 17:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-25 16:02 Dave Taht
2015-11-25 16:37 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-25 17:30 ` Dave Taht
2015-11-25 17:45 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-25 17:51 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant [this message]
2015-11-25 18:23 ` Dave Taht
2015-11-25 18:31 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2015-11-25 20:08 ` Sebastian Moeller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cake.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5655F538.8060409@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk \
--to=kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox