From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu (lennier.cc.vt.edu [198.82.162.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91BF621F300 for ; Sun, 25 May 2014 07:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mr5.cc.vt.edu (mr5.cc.vt.edu [198.82.141.27]) by lennier.cc.vt.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4PEPIb4015812; Sun, 25 May 2014 10:25:18 -0400 Received: from auth1.smtp.vt.edu (auth1.smtp.vt.edu [198.82.161.152] (may be forged)) by mr5.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4PEPDlv017630; Sun, 25 May 2014 10:25:18 -0400 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([128.173.39.36]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth1.smtp.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4PEPBdh004002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 25 May 2014 10:25:11 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 with nmh-1.6+dev To: Dane Medic In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 25 May 2014 08:17:47 +0200." From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1401027783_1954P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 10:23:03 -0400 Message-ID: <211075.1401027783@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mr5.cc.vt.edu Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Ubiquiti QOS X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 14:26:24 -0000 --==_Exmh_1401027783_1954P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, 25 May 2014 08:17:47 +0200, Dane Medic said: > Is it true that devices with less than 64 MB can't handle QOS? -> > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/commotion-dev/2014-May/001816.html I'm not going to give one post on a list very much credence, especially when it doesn't contain a single actual fact or definitive claim. An explanation of exactly which data structure won't fit in 32M would be ideal. Even some numbers on RAM usage from /proc/slabinfo and a "who ate all the frobozz slabs?" would be better than what's in the post. --==_Exmh_1401027783_1954P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iQIVAwUBU4H8xwdmEQWDXROgAQJM7g//e4Z2aCbFmBXGsnGnTRwMrejDwPbJJOX3 Qn+MIqJ9sQTG49+VFi3yhkIoxNkaGw4xqB0Cu5KD6tqRWhxOvz0EhIqNU2EzJr+L W+LhPWQoy7uBbsvbcpwtUD8LukjmfrlvefRZJf1MhCZy0WovZ0nMnYj7L4CG1deY BWBNJHyAvkj2tUctI5+pVqJ7GlS0yXioEp9aKDub9XehiLOXjt7yGdhxYconxILw o3cQjcbd3Y/CCl7GYWF0hjRspSN1sTdyw4AOazpevoKwTSfR0Z/dK27d6QQ3LeAG GaRDlEpSSuUdhEtFgKkAweRcZTdL41ohgBk1Ij4V83kWeo/spn3nyz+fNn0vdjsR +RuleFOg6JAnlHU+FyFpZAMpw1HujMMpGa8ives+ZeT1wZxsFSFQLZ9R2YwcDpAS FDXhImL/ifb84sc6R1qQ/MgfYDLTFKYkQHDplJ/ZakV9dxk1K4sKe1c4C2kDTOvM mXL6p7gNagzs9DZob23SlzDBpWugIa7m/JEeelCgVnzZkfMFN5dSiZ5PocKdcuC7 Nrs2/GSzxQRM+koNPVhYd2YQDQQdIELC0npvtElUUH/OgIppnpobXqOKMgiXdSh9 rQqfcqCydcYULcD4arb8lpxD9vhWoOb6w7h4SFFl43I2sGf+7BuSKkRO+qVzH15/ jd8zgsNPTGA= =paZk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1401027783_1954P--