Re: HTB or CBQ ?

Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control

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

 



Vladimír Trebický wrote:

>I use ESFQ and it's stable and functional ;-) Really. Read my article about
>not setting perturb too small.
>  
>
Yes, I saw that; its a good hint for SFQ as well (and it fixed some neat 
oddities too).

Anyone else seen this one?

ping -n {remote host}
{ 6 second delay }
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=6sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=5sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=4sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=3sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=2sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=1sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=242usec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=250usec
...

-- 
Michael T. Babcock
C.T.O., FibreSpeed Ltd.
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

[Index of Archives]     [LARTC Home Page]     [Netfilter]     [Netfilter Development]     [Network Development]     [Bugtraq]     [GCC Help]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Fedora Users]
  Powered by Linux