From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com
	[IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
	Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82BED21F30E
	for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:33:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lfs39 with SMTP id 39so58599009lfs.3
	for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:33:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
	bh=Ty9gAkROlw6Vkh11jSlLDHO/P2AQaVLl+PFw1XkNJfY=;
	b=Y8ae/a8MR70N9gQRnjt4DVt4HBjx43lfQkGX7iap6Cm8zQYbVLqUPHifKi6qwi9p+F
	auGntUZlaXN32qTmvnrUPbW4jWEq+aXMsbFFJAFeT1LehqHqtzGNawQrs2xvhVjeRsj7
	/zx9mdF629pZr6ZygdJr+/mK+fMgUh2ZRsPSEKrNRJVsiFIzk5YbhHJhkm7dQikrQzdw
	BY2K6BpugYN5IeszlM2hl/AFGOoYe8mNTFTuadHYGFdcVk27UmOaZeTGwxFUkiViyTXB
	6JzICAjw3fykwtGndX2L4yLyajrGM08Tt5NHKnBTCKt87Uj6PVNrOJWMgmcboz7fOyyj
	jcUw==
X-Received: by 10.25.142.17 with SMTP id q17mr4762821lfd.59.1447975985525;
	Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:33:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bass.home.chromatix.fi (83-245-246-100-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi.
	[83.245.246.100]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
	t82sm1549751lfe.14.2015.11.19.15.33.04
	(version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128);
	Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw5Z7Bei6YFkDmfCr+giFKuJf6iNQwnO_=tSxbghDoWu1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 01:33:02 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5C183BAB-3524-4A5B-98EC-E3A91267C44F@gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw5Z7Bei6YFkDmfCr+giFKuJf6iNQwnO_=tSxbghDoWu1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] cake vs fq_codel
X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation <cake.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cake>,
	<mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cake>
List-Post: <mailto:cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake>,
	<mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 23:33:31 -0000


> On 19 Nov, 2015, at 11:17, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> A) Under what circumstances is cake a replacement for fq_codel?

When shaping or Diffserv prioritisation is required, or when flow hash =
collisions are likely to be problematic.=20

> B) When is fq_codel a better choice than cake?

When none of the above apply, and a slight improvement in CPU and memory =
overhead is desirable.

 - Jonathan Morton