From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Furniss Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:29:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] new perflow rate control queue Message-Id: <4253D644.6060400@dsl.pipex.com> List-Id: References: <20050404152117.6d90635d.lark@linux.net.cn> In-Reply-To: <20050404152117.6d90635d.lark@linux.net.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Wang Jian wrote: > > I read back your post and I think the best solution for you is use HTB + > PRIO. I sort of have htb setup like prio but it's more flexable. > > Let interactive but low rate traffic have highest priority, and let bulk > transfer have lowest priority and constrain them using HTB. > > TCP itself has some fairness: slower stream get faster, and faster > stream get slower. The sliding window is for this. TCP can be very unfair in some cases - different window sizes/scale on off and 56k vs broadband peer. I am rebuilding stuff on my gateway at the moment and noticed the iproute patch doesn't compile with gcc 2.95.3 it's fine with 3.3. q_perflow.c: In function `perflow_print_opt': q_perflow.c:141: parse error before `char' q_perflow.c:142: `b1' undeclared (first use in this function) q_perflow.c:142: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once q_perflow.c:142: for each function it appears in.) make[1]: *** [q_perflow.o] Error 1 Andy. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc