> I disagree that the goal is to make the subqueues the same length. > The goal is to serve them with the same bandwidth (as long as they > don't become empty.) Not that you need backing-up, but I agree with you. SFQ is there to provide near-fair queuing on a per-session basis. As modified, it could also be used to provide near-fair queuing on a per-IP basis instead, but having different-depthed sub-queues simply indicates why fairness is needed (one sub-queue would otherwise have dominated the available bandwidth). A very long sub-queue however, indicates that perhaps fairness is not being acheived (although, that's why its refered to as being stochastic). This is why I suggested at least being able to tune the size of the hash / number of hash buckets so as to redistribute the streams through more sub-queues. Dealing with bursts properly at Linux timer resolutions is another issue :-). -- Michael T. Babcock CTO, FibreSpeed Ltd. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
