On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Yes and a protocol change was made to help. I believe this is the purpose of
> > In case of dynamic throttling we won't be having any _fixed_ rate at which
> > the connections assigned for updates will be able receive the packets. It
> > means packets would be dropped frequently to implement policing. Isn't this
> > waste of resources?
ECN (explicit congestion notification).
Shaping on the wrong side of a link is problematic. You can implement queues
> > Tools like tc and tcng implement queues to control outbound data. Is there
> > any similar _kind of_ option available for inbound data?
> > (Obviously we can't have queues because once the packet has been received
> > must be processed)
on the receiving side which might allow you to better control which flows
get slowed down using IFBs (which replace the older IMQs). While you can't
absolutely prevent the other side from swamping the link with low priority
packets, things should work reasonably with well behaved applications.
Ingress shaping...sounds good!
Basically it is the way to implement policing efficiently?
--
Regards,
Sunil Ghai
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
