[LARTC] esfq ? or wrr ?

[LARTC] esfq ? or wrr ?

[LinuXKiD]

Hi

If I have a HTB class with 128kbit, and I want to 
put "N" users in that class ( in order to share 
bandwidth fairly ) , 

which is better for me ?  esfq (hash dst)  or wrr ?

I would attach esfq or wrr to HTB parent class.

Also I've readed on Jim script that over WRR put
a RED qdisc, but I don't understand it.

bests

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

Re: [LARTC] esfq ? or wrr ?

[Jonathan Day]

I think it depends on the type of traffic you're
expecting from the different users. If you're
expecting very similar patterns of behaviour, then my
guess would be ESFQ would be the better.

If, on the other hand, the network load is going to
shift over time, between the users, then WRR would
seem the more logical choice.

You might also want to look at HFSC (Heirarchical Fair
Service Curve) - it's possible you might be able to
get what you want from the single algorithm, rather
than piping through several. The fewer layers you
have, the less latency you'll introduce. HFSC also has
the advantage that it is standard in the kernel, so
likely has better testing.

ESFQ and WRR have been forward-ported, well,
sometimes, but only the combined -qos patch seems to
be current - the individual patches don't seem to be
maintained at all.

I would like to see the patches cleaned up (as
necessary) then submitted for merging into the
mainstream kernel. Linux' QoS code is in frankly
horrible shape at the moment, so anything that stirred
interest in it would almost have to be a good thing,
even if the patches themselves didn't get included any
time soon.

--- LinuXKiD <gregoriandres@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> If I have a HTB class with 128kbit, and I want to 
> put "N" users in that class ( in order to share 
> bandwidth fairly ) , 
> 
> which is better for me ?  esfq (hash dst)  or wrr ?
> 
> I would attach esfq or wrr to HTB parent class.
> 
> Also I've readed on Jim script that over WRR put
> a RED qdisc, but I don't understand it.
> 
> bests
> 
> andres
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list
> LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
>
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] esfq ? or wrr ?

[Corey Hickey]

Jonathan Day wrote:
> ESFQ and WRR have been forward-ported, well,
> sometimes, but only the combined -qos patch seems to
> be current - the individual patches don't seem to be
> maintained at all.

I still maintain ESFQ; the latest version is at:
http://fatooh.org/esfq-2.6/

These days there hasn't been much to do; as far as I know the patches I
made on 2005-03-31 still work fine with the latest kernel and iproute2.
I just put a note about that on my ESFQ page.

> I would like to see the patches cleaned up (as
> necessary) then submitted for merging into the
> mainstream kernel. Linux' QoS code is in frankly
> horrible shape at the moment, so anything that stirred
> interest in it would almost have to be a good thing,
> even if the patches themselves didn't get included any
> time soon.

That would be nice. One or two other people have approached me about
trying to get ESFQ merged, but I just haven't gotten around to it. When
I've finished my current project I'll get in touch with Stephen
Hemminger and see what must be done to get the iproute2 patch merged,
and then take it from there.

This would be an appropriate time to ask:
Does anybody have any fixes for or improvements to ESFQ that I don't
know about? My patch doesn't have anything revolutionary -- I've been
merely keeping Alexander Clouter's 2.6 port in sync with the upstream
changes to SFQ.

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

RE: [LARTC] esfq ? or wrr ?

[LinuXKiD]

-> I think it depends on the type of traffic you're
-> expecting from the different users. If you're
-> expecting very similar patterns of behaviour, then my
-> guess would be ESFQ would be the better.
-> 
-> If, on the other hand, the network load is going to
-> shift over time, between the users, then WRR would
-> seem the more logical choice.
-> 
-> You might also want to look at HFSC (Heirarchical Fair
-> Service Curve) - it's possible you might be able to
-> get what you want from the single algorithm, rather
-> than piping through several. The fewer layers you
-> have, the less latency you'll introduce. HFSC also has
-> the advantage that it is standard in the kernel, so
-> likely has better testing.

OK. I've read some domcumments about HFSC, but at the momment
I understand it. Can you post me a good tutorial about HFSC ?

thank you.


-> 
-> ESFQ and WRR have been forward-ported, well,
-> sometimes, but only the combined -qos patch seems to
-> be current - the individual patches don't seem to be
-> maintained at all.
-> 
-> I would like to see the patches cleaned up (as
-> necessary) then submitted for merging into the
-> mainstream kernel. Linux' QoS code is in frankly
-> horrible shape at the moment, so anything that stirred
-> interest in it would almost have to be a good thing,
-> even if the patches themselves didn't get included any
-> time soon.
-> 
-> --- LinuXKiD <gregoriandres@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
-> 
-> > Hi
-> > 
-> > If I have a HTB class with 128kbit, and I want to 
-> > put "N" users in that class ( in order to share 
-> > bandwidth fairly ) , 
-> > 
-> > which is better for me ?  esfq (hash dst)  or wrr ?
-> > 
-> > I would attach esfq or wrr to HTB parent class.
-> > 
-> > Also I've readed on Jim script that over WRR put
-> > a RED qdisc, but I don't understand it.
-> > 
-> > bests
-> > 
-> > andres
-> > _______________________________________________
-> > LARTC mailing list
-> > LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
-> >
-> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
-> > 
-> 
-> 
-> 
-> 		
-> __________________________________ 
-> Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
-> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] esfq ? or wrr ?

[gypsy]

Corey Hickey wrote:
> 
> I still maintain ESFQ; the latest version is at:
> http://fatooh.org/esfq-2.6/
> 
> This would be an appropriate time to ask:
> Does anybody have any fixes for or improvements to ESFQ that I don't
> know about? My patch doesn't have anything revolutionary -- I've been
> merely keeping Alexander Clouter's 2.6 port in sync with the upstream
> changes to SFQ.
> 
> -Corey

1) I'd like for your code to support kernel version 2.4!  It is crazy
that there are two branches of ESFQ.
2) ESFQ should be able to match a firewall mark, dport and sport.  All
except CLASSIC should understand NOT ("! sport 22").
3) The documentation should be improved.
--
gypsy
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc