On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Christian Worm Mortensen wrote: > Maybe I will read it some day ;-) I think you _Must_ (especially if you are implementing WRR). There are some good ideas there > > > but fixing the deficit such that you > > take into consideration 'byte credit' a queue has when you preempt it > > makes a WRR implementation closer to DRR. > > Well, the WRR qdisc essentially works this way: > > * For each band (=class) there is a byte counter > * When a band transfers a packet the byte counter is > increased by the packet size divided with the weight (which is a > number between 0 and 1) > * The next band that can transfer a packet is always the one with the > lowest byte counter. > > It also does some additional things to make sure that when a new band > has something to send it can send it immedialty. I don't see any way > this scheme can be improved. > So is this decision on packet by packet? I.e when do you decide that a 'band' should stop sending? Are there opportunities that a 'band' could be starved? Dont make me go read the Varghese paper again. You should ;-> > > The original CBQ implementation is the classical WRR; > > But it did not take the packet size into account? It didnt. cheers, jamal
