On Monday 15 November 2004 20:06, Ricardo Soria wrote: <snip> > Dear Andy: > > Very thanks for your answer. However, I need a little > bit more extended explanation. > > First, you say that I should "back off more from link > speed - total ceils to about 80% and share that > between interactive and bulk". So, do you mean that > if I have a total 512Kbit link, and 2 child classes, I > should not divide the whole 512kbit between the 2 > classes, but, I should only divide 410kbit between > them, and share the remaining 102kbit between them?? > Or do you mean I should only consider 410kbit as the > whole link capacity?? I think he meant to treat your link as if it were only 410kbit. With some testing you can verify just how close to 100% of your advertised capacity you can get, but 80% is often a good place to start. > Second, you say that I should not use SFQ as a > sub-qdisc, because of the lenght of the queue, being > it ESFQ (new for me) a better choice. But later, you > say I should use SFQ for bulk traffic (I think you > refer surfing as "bulk", and voip as "interactive"). > So, should I use SFQ for bulk classes and ESFQ for > interactive classes ?? Or, should I use ESFQ for all > leaf classes?? Or, should I use ESFQ for bulk classes > and default (pfifo, I think) for interactive classes?? I am curious about this myself. I placed a default sfq qdisc with the 128 queue default on a p2p class that had a rate of 144kbit and it routinely spiked to about 150kbit several times a second. If I use pfifo with a queue length of 10 I find my utilization for that class at around 146kbit instead. Is it the queue length causing this behavior? -- Jason Boxman Perl Programmer / *NIX Systems Administrator Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing | University of Florida http://edseek.com/ - Linux and FOSS stuff _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
