* [LARTC] Why SFQ?
@ 2006-07-23 16:55 S.Mehdi Sheikhalishahi
2006-07-31 13:53 ` Andy Furniss
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: S.Mehdi Sheikhalishahi @ 2006-07-23 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
Hello,
Why linux users use SFQ as leaf queueing discipline instead of RED
and other?
--
Best Regards,
S.Mehdi Sheikhalishahi,
Bye.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [LARTC] Why SFQ?
2006-07-23 16:55 [LARTC] Why SFQ? S.Mehdi Sheikhalishahi
@ 2006-07-31 13:53 ` Andy Furniss
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andy Furniss @ 2006-07-31 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
S.Mehdi Sheikhalishahi wrote:
> Hello,
> Why linux users use SFQ as leaf queueing discipline instead of RED
> and other?
>
We don't all - I guess alot of the examples do though.
SFQ does rough fairness for individual connections within a class -
nothing else does (well RED a bit). It does have less desireable aspects
like perturb causing packet reordering and not using perturb means its
less fair between flows.
Andy.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-07-31 13:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-07-23 16:55 [LARTC] Why SFQ? S.Mehdi Sheikhalishahi
2006-07-31 13:53 ` Andy Furniss
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.