[Cerowrt-devel] [Codel] [Bloat] Latest codel, fq_codel, and pie sim study from cablelabs now available
andrewmcgr at gmail.com
Wed May 8 21:45:41 EDT 2013
Strict priority plays very badly with unmanaged devices... HTB or DRR will
have many fewer 'the network is broken' corner cases.
Or indeed, fq_codel extended with more queue lists and a matrix of
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 15:25 -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
> > Heh. I am hoping you are providing this as a negative proof!? as the
> > strict prioritization of this particular linux scheduler means that a
> > single full rate TCP flow in class 1:1 will completely starve classes
> > 1:2 and 1:3.
> > Some level of fairness between service classes is needed too. My most
> > common setting for the "cake" shaper has been 20% minimum for the
> > background traffic, for example. I am unsure if codel is really the
> > right thing for the highest priority qdisc, as everything
> PRIO qdisc does strict priority, like pfifo_fast.
> If your high prio traffic is also using 100% of the bandwith, then there
> is a fundamental problem about classifying this so called high prio
> On my hosts, high prio traffic uses less than 0.1 % of the bandwidth,
> so I do not need to have DRR kind of setup.
> And the low priority traffic has no minimum guaranteed bandwidth.
> There is no 'magic solution' for every needs. The solution I gave is
> good enough if you need to have some strict priorities, as a replacement
> to current pfifo_fast, and if all traffic is not miss classified.
> A setup using DRR instead of PRIO is also possible.
> Codel mailing list
> Codel at lists.bufferbloat.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cerowrt-devel