The 05/11/13, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > Hi Remy, > from what I understand the default pfifo_fast qdisc isn't particulary > fair when a single flow or a few flows flood the interface/buffer with > packets so I am wondering if qdiscs like QFQ, SFQ or CHOKe could be > improvements compared to the default "dumb" pfifo one. You are right the pfifo_fast is not fair at all. Now, unless you already know that you will hit some real use cases of such floods causing damages to the flows I would recommend you to stick to the default pfifo_fast which work great most of the time. Each qdisc comes with advantages and inconveniences. Of course, if you experiment some network issues the correct thing to do might be to tune some queueing disciplines. Though in practice, this is not even sure that this would be the root cause as network problems can come from a lot of other things (offloading, hardware, drivers, etc). Most of the time, I think people tune qdiscs because of real issues or a strong policy and I guess this is the good thing to do. Doing it to prevent /potential/ issues looks like avoidable pain and administration overhead, to me. Have fun, -- Nicolas Sebrecht -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lartc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
