From: Mario Giammarco <mgiammarco@supereva.it>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LARTC] priority bands don't reduce interactive latency?
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:34:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-101402545701432@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-lartc-98373938216950@msgid-missing>
Il sab, 2002-02-16 alle 20:26, Martin Devera ha scritto:
> Mario,
>
First I thank you all for your precious support! In diffserv mailing
list there is less help!
> I looked at the conf. First don't use prio 4 - it is the same as
> prio 3 (htb does prios 0..3).
Ok I have corrected it.
> How do you measure the latency ? Ping ? How big packet, which ip
> is pinged ? You use prio and other schedulers on ppp ... Goes the
> ping packet through them ?
Sure testing is difficult. Please note that I have tried different
configurations and not only the one I posted: sfq vs red, htb vs prio
etc. etc. etc.
> Did you tested for sure that packets are enqueued into right
> class (tc -s class show dev eth0) ?
>
Unfortunately tc command shows to me that packets are in right class.
> If it could be htb problem I'm ready to look at it (although I've
> been solving almost ten reports like this and only first two were
> really htb bugs - other was mainly bad setup, bad expectations or
> bad measuring).
> I don't want to be alibistic only I'm short of time as I work in new
> htb algorithm ;)
>
No, I do not want to accuse you of a bug. I have asked only because I do
not want to spend a month on various tests and THEN discover that there
is a KNOWN bug in htb.
I rememeber when I had to implement diffserv with cbq for my teacher. I
had to cheat a lot because cqb parameters do not do what they mean.
If you say htb is stable I am happy.
Please continue developing new algorithms ;-)
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/lartc/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-18 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-18 6:15 [LARTC] priority bands don't reduce interactive latency? Dan
2002-02-15 18:23 ` Mario Giammarco
2002-02-15 18:27 ` Martin Devera
2002-02-16 12:47 ` Mario Giammarco
2002-02-16 16:13 ` Ross Skaliotis
2002-02-16 19:26 ` Martin Devera
2002-02-18 8:34 ` Mario Giammarco [this message]
2002-02-18 10:00 ` Martin Devera
2002-02-21 15:03 ` Mario Giammarco
2002-02-22 9:38 ` Martin Devera
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=marc-lartc-101402545701432@msgid-missing \
--to=mgiammarco@supereva.it \
--cc=lartc@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.