Hi Andy Furniss,
I just tried HTB+SFQ. I replace 'perflow ...' in t.sh with 'sfq'.
The test result is very bad. The speed is not stable, and speed variation is too large when considering fairness.
The HTB is rate=80kbps,ceil=80kbps. I use 7 streams to test. Streams's speed vary from 3.4kbps to 28.7kbps. The test last about 10 minutes, and the speeds don't like to converge.
Maybe the fairness is achived in long run, but it hurts applications that need bandwidth guarantee.
Yes - I can make sfq look bad in tests, if the only difference is dst port then it just doesn't work and if the ip addresses are sequential it's not too good. In practice I use esfq as you can use more hash buckets - but perturb is horrable for the packet reordering.
I think perflow is going to be far better for me - just that having low bandwidth means I would never send interactive to sfq anyway and only use it for bulk whose rate is controlled by htb per user and is quite variable - so for me just letting htb do rate would be fine.
Andy. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
