Hi, > > Yes, but in the howto also a qdisc named WRR is mentioned. > > What HOWTO? This thread is on two mailing lists. One of the lists is for the howto located on http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/. This howto mentions the WRR qdisc (see http://wipl-wrr.dkik.dk/wrr/) which is a qdisc that is _not_ included in the standard kernel and has nothing to do with CBQ. > WRR works well when you apriori know the packet/cell sizes (eg in ATM). > If you cant do this, then WRR is unfair once you start having a lot of > flows going or you mistweak your weights etc. DRR fixes this. Hmm... Maybe you talk about how WRR/DRR is implemented in CBQ? A pure WRR scheduler works perfect no matter what size the packets have. If, of course, the scheduler takes packet sizes into account. What exactly is the problem with a WRR scheduler? Another thing: Unless you have a need to give special traffic very low delay I don't see any reason why you would want to use CBQ instead of pure WRR? I.e.: If you use CBQ with all prio parameters set to the same, why not use pure WRR instead? > Why dont you read the classical paper at: > http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm95/papers/shreedhar.html What I really need is a paper describing CBQ in Linux - the original article desribing CBQ is very generel. And when I experimented with CBQ the last time I did not see the behaviour I would exepect from the article assuming that the generel scehudler was a WRR scheduler. Christian
