> On Apr 6, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
> 
> Ah, right; you can't get the two-level scheduling that Cake does with
> just FQ-CoDel. Didn't realise you were looking for that, sorry...
> 
> You could assign a fixed number of hash buckets to each member (i.e.
> member #1 gets buckets 1-10, say, hashing flows into those). But the
> FQ-CoDel scheduler would be oblivious to the hierarchy, so a member with
> 10 active queues would get service for each of those each time another
> member with just one active queue gets service for his queue.
> 
> To get the hierarchical sub-division, you'd need to have a two-level
> scheme where you have a separate instance of fq-codel per member.

Well, it's only perhaps a requirement. I’m in the middle of some flow isolation tests to look at the difference between Cake’s ‘srchost’ and ‘dual-srchost’ keywords and try to figure out whether one or the other is “better" to use on a ISP backhaul’s egress. I’m not sure yet, but if there are any opinions on it it could help.

But this is also helpful, because either per-member scheduling is good enough, or we’d need multiple fq_codel instances, and at that point it could also be Cake as well… :)