> =?iso-8859-1?Q?John_B=E4ckstrand?= writes: > > > This is not very convincing. Do you actually know > > how WFQ > > > works? If so, please tell us. The doc you sent did > > not describe how > > > it works but what the effects are, and those are > > entirely consistent > > > with what SFQ does. > > > High bandwidth flows are limited, low bandwidth flows > > get lower > > > latency. Can you describe some effect that's > > different? > > > > I read a bit on WFQ earlier, Im not grasping it totally > > and I dont know every implementation detail, but I > > think its basically WRR but taking actual bandwidth > > usage into account, and not just packet-counts. Well, > > try this: > > > > http://www.sics.se/~ianm/WFQ/wfq_descrip/node21.html > > This sounds just like SFQ except for the weights. > I have a variant of SFQ that does support weights if that's important. > It's easy to add. (The hard part is the code that allows you to > configure the weights.) I was under the impression that the weights of WFQ isnt actually supposed to be set manually, but rather automatically. This page has a nice picture of WFQ (I think) http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/732/Tech/wfq/ It says: "Weight determined by: *Required QoS (IP Procedure, RSVP) *Flow throughput inversely proportional *Frame relay FECN, BECN, DE (for FR Traffic)" Only think I actually understood was "Flow throughput inversely proportional" which is a property I am looking for when trying to find a traffic control implementation. --- John Bäckstrand _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
