Andrew Beverley wrote:
Well according to a question just posted to the (new) LARTC mailing
list,
Interesting - where's the new list please?
HFSC might not be a bad idea for you. I'm still trying to get my head
around it
Ah yes, I've noticed the questions on the netdev list. Thanks for that -
I just need to spend some time reading through the details now!
That's a lot to digest.
One thing that I recall from when hfsc first came out is that when
testing it wouldn't limit bulk if the class wasn't backlogged.
For most people if you have enough bandwidth I doubt this is an issue,
but at the time I was limiting for a 256kit dsl line with five users.
The hfsc paper says (IIRC) that the system will be backlogged until the
last bit is transmitted - this would have made it really useful for me,
but the Linux implementation didn't (doesn't?) seem to behave like this,
so with five empty bulk classes firing five packets at them all would
instantly dequeue borking my latency 5x more that I could achieve with
htb classes with low burst set.
Of course htb isn't perfect and will sometime dequeue more than one at a
time when multiple classes backlogged (hfsc probably wins in this case)
it's just that one test put me off hfsc. Now I have more bandwidth this
new documentation could be very useful - thanks for taking the time and
effort.
I assume it's still "mean" by dropping unclassified traffic if you don't
set a default class - that used to catch people out as htb was the
opposite so at least you didn't loose your arp while playing around.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
