RE: [LARTC] PRIO and TBF is much better than HTB??

["Simo" <simo@mix4web.de>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1117 bytes --]

Hi,

Thanks for your answer.

You are right concerning the PRIO QDisc, but which I did not understand is
that the combination (PRIO+TBF) made a Shaping nearly exactly the same as
with HTB only with better latency. One sees this with the comparison of the
two following illustrations of my simulation: 
HTB with prio parameter cumulative:
http://simo.mix4web.de/up/htb_cumul_prio_paramter.jpg
PRIO and TBF cumulative: http://simo.mix4web.de/up/prio_tbf_cumul.jpg

>
> theory it will even starve the low priority traffic, if high prio traffic
is waiting to go out.
>


In the first illustration you can see that  the low priority traffic also
has been served (nearly exactly the same as with HTB). Because of the use of
PRIO in combination with TBF.

But the latency is much better, if you compares the following illustrations:

HTB with prio parameter delay:
http://simo.mix4web.de/up/htb_delay_prio_parameter.jpg
PRIO and TBF delay: http://simo.mix4web.de/up/prio_tbf_delay.jpg

I think that the overhead with the HTB algorithm is larger and the scheduler
keeps the packets a little longer in the queues.

Simo



 


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4386 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc