On 25/11/15 17:45, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On Nov 25, 2015, at 18:30 , Dave Taht wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >>> Hi Dave, >>> >>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 17:02 , Dave Taht 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.