TBF provides traffic shaping by the Token Bucket theory, while SFQ makes sure(actually just hints) swap packets in different sessions so that no particular session will hang around for a long time.
Yes I know the difference between TBF and SFQ.
I was trying to ask about the programming/architectural difference between creating a *internal Qdisc* for buffering (like TBF does) and then using
q->qdisc->enqueue(skb, q->qdisc) etc. commands for queueing ...
or just use the qdisc "provided"? __skb_enqueue(skb, skq->q) etc commands for queueing....
But thanks for your reply
Regards R.Harper
R Harper wrote: > Hell > I'm new to Qdisc programming and I was wondering, what is the difference > between using an internal Qdisc (like e.g. TBF does) vs. not using > internal Qdisc (like e.g. SFQ does)? > > Can someone give me a quick rundown of pro and cons? > > with regards > R.harper > > _________________________________________________________________ > Undg? pop-ups med MSN Toolbar - http://toolbar.msn.dk hent den gratis! > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list > LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc >
_________________________________________________________________ Få alle de nye og sjove ikoner med MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.dk/
_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
