From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-da0-f43.google.com (mail-da0-f43.google.com
	[209.85.210.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
	Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6776B202102
	for <Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Thu,  3 Jan 2013 09:57:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-da0-f43.google.com with SMTP id u36so7123989dak.30
	for <Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:57:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=x-received:subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type
	:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=2EANm88uqK8sydrJZ92S55bfKoQ1OmpE3aRZL4uJ9mE=;
	b=TRhjo/yi8k4/Gfd6X+kBDL5oJh/+eymCAtC32bDAcMW/rVx5kFhy6MJssF1HbLb3oB
	g3mzeBx2DMbxOq5w00Kmowrzfj4aCRZkPtD6j2Ihw8FR7HIXZJTUZwneFjnVWhu5Yw95
	wLEnI9d+O65KNt+632KRne5bucc1W2+iljYmQpjssK9ZmlZwfmd8bJZbooCkJl62oTLy
	lvw50Bu5ptNnOERGU+2t6MXqgJObYvBvd93TS/rbA6jFV5JN8eupyEJAETbKlKUJWNZw
	Uz2K4gTldAwFAvzBwqKuNBnc0JasB9fgEP/1sTjUfrhy3XgkijPyr2WgFtzLL2+Bm0WQ
	NXRQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.236.2 with SMTP id uq2mr153904444pbc.55.1357235868868;
	Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:57:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.26.54.205] ([172.26.54.205])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sb3sm30665163pbc.44.2013.01.03.09.57.47
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:57:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Bolletta <alessandro@mediaspot.net>
In-Reply-To: <F52F175DFC537F48A43937B50B44BCA276D16D81@EXCHANGE.mediaspot.local>
References: <F52F175DFC537F48A43937B50B44BCA276D16D81@EXCHANGE.mediaspot.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:57:46 -0800
Message-ID: <1357235866.21409.25372.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Codel] Using fq_codel queuing on backbone routers
X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions <codel.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/codel>,
	<mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/codel>
List-Post: <mailto:codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel>,
	<mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:57:49 -0000

On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 17:49 +0000, Alessandro Bolletta wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> I read in the main wiki page that CoDel doesn’t work as it should on
> heavy loaded environments as, for example, backbone routers, right?
> 
> Well, we’d like to make some test on our core mesh-to-fiber gateway
> when we’ll get our fiber connection but it isn’t too much clear what
> did you mean in wiki.
> 
>  
> 
> For example: do you think that fq_codel will be able to manage
> thousands flows correctly on core router connected to a 1Gbit
> symmetric fiber link?

Of course it will be able to manage this workload on current hardware.

It adds a small overhead compared to a mere fifo. I guess you already
use a complex qdisc hierarchy anyway, so you'll hardly notice a
performance impact at all.