Re: packet priorities

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



| >  The deadline is not that easy to determine due to client side buffering. At
| >  least that would require cooperation on receiving side. For now I just assume
| >  that some packets are simply more important than others. That is they convey
| >  more information to the one who is watching. When streaming football match
| >  you are probably less interested in voice comments, music and applause and
| >  more about "where is the ball?" (video more important). But when watching the
| >  news usually audio is much more important than the object on video that
| >  you've already seen thousands of times.
| 
| You can track the rtt and also mark the expiry time and do the maths.
As per other email, I am interested in supporting the expiry time, with
the following sketch:

 * value is a simple unsigned which sets the expiry time relative to the
   time that the packet is submitted by the application;
 * millisecond or 10-millisecond granularity probably fully sufficient
   (would allow to use jiffy calculations);
 * reusing Ian's struct concept and the priority field:
   - if priority == 0, don't interpret any of the special fields;
   - if priority == 1, discard packet if too old;
   - rest is for further research/discussion.

Andre Noll, who maintains the paraslash streamer (with DCCP support)
further suggested a setsockopt() option to set the tx_qlen on a
per-socket basis, so that the size of the TX queue can be adapted.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [IETF DCCP]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux