On Tuesday 04 January 2005 23:24, Jonathan Day wrote: > Hi, > > A thought for the list. As I mentioned in another > posting, there are a lot of QoS mechanisms out there. > Linux supports some, but not all. Some patchsets add > others, but don't work for all kernels. There are also > userland implementations, usually sitting in software > routers, but there are other packages. > > Would it be helpful if I worked on a table of what's > out there for Linux and in what form? Possibly. I only know of CBQ, HTB, HFSC, SFQ, TBF, PFIFO, PRIO, G/RED for Linux offhand. > The main drawback of such a list is that while I can > tell you if such-and-such an implementation exists, > that doesn't mean the implementation is any good, or > that the QoS concept is valid. There are plenty of > arguments amongst QoS researchers as to whether RED is > useful or not, and those are the people most qualified > to know the answer. Nor would I be able to verify what > kernel patches work well together, so the individual > existance of specific mechanisms doesn't mean you can > combine them usefully. Yeah, QoS isn't exactly a plug and play experience. > On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any easy > way for people to find out what does exist, what > doesn't exist YET for Linux but could easily be > written, or what used to exist but has been dropped > for reasons known or unknown. I wrote a guide, Practical Guide to Linux Traffic Control[1], which I keep up to date as developments change. I only cover stuff in the mainline kernel for the most part, though. [1] http://trekweb.com/~jasonb/articles/traffic_shaping/ > For example, SGI's "Scheduled Transfer Protocol", > MPLS, WRR and ESFQ are all examples of networking > algorithms that are apparently deceased. The Layer 7 > packet classifier isn't dead, but doesn't apply > cleanly to kernels 2.6.9 or later. Layer 7 does patch against 2.6.9 with an experimental patch available since the beginning of December on the project's SF page. It Works For Me (tm) but I guess it hasn't been tested sufficiently such that it's now available as a stable 2.6.9+ patch. > Finding these can be fun, too. I've got a copy of the > Scheduled Transfer Protocol patches, but that's > because I downloaded them while they were still on > SGI's FTP site. If they exist anywhere on the Internet > today, I haven't the foggiest where. The site for ESFQ > is dead, and the only known patches forward-ported to > recent kernels is merged into the qnet patch series, > making it hard to extract. That's too bad. I had wanted to include something about ESFQ but never got around to it, since SFQ generally suits my needs. -- 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/
