> > the slots was removed from latest code and link above is obsolete (where > > you have found it ?) ;) > I can still find this link despite of refreshing page in my browser, May > some cache server running in between. No cache .. the page is still on my server but it is treated as obsolete. I just marked the link to it as such ;) > COOL IMQ. How much throughput will be reduced or latency will be added > while using IMQ? As in every flow it adds/increase one hope internally? Yes it is one enqueue and dequeue for qdisc. So that is will add latency as dictated by the qdisc .. So that there should be only negligible unwanted performance hit. > > Just to note that speed depends ONLY on number of ACTIVE classes (active > > flows). Those without data enqueued are idle and don't decrease > > throughtput. > Presently I'm running setup with 200 queues (200 RED leaves and 200 u32 > classifiers), Thus basically a seperate queue for every individual in my > organization. Ya I never knew about the dependency of throughput on active > flows. I'm planing to go for 400 queues. Sometime before Documentations on > Devik's home page stat that RED is not going to work with HTB and will > simply eat CPU cycles. I couldn't locate it now anywhere? Does it works with > new release of HTB? I can't remember that I would have such note on my pages. But basically HTB,CBQ and TBF are exclusive options. They don't fit well one into another. It is because they are all absolute rate dependent and all are non-work conserving. RED is also dependant on absolute rate but it is work-conserving. So that it can be used as CBQ's or HTB's leaf and there should be ho hard problem with it. However I don't know RED sources well so that I can't predict some obscure problems. > > Also limiting is packet rate not byte rate .. The limit is somewhere > But ultimately its going to limit on byte transfer, isn't it? Yes as end effect it is. devik
