[Cake] basic cake
kevin at darbyshire-bryant.me.uk
Wed Nov 25 12:51:52 EST 2015
On 25/11/15 17:45, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 18:30 , Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Hi Dave,
>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 17:02 , Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> 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:
> 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
Works. Never got as far as devising a test let alone running it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4816 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Cake