Re: [LARTC] Large number of HTB classes

[Simon Lodal <simonl@parknet.dk>]

[back from reading up on HFSC]

I am much tempted to go with HFSC.

But I am also much tempted to stay with HTB only because HFSC is so 
complex, and randomly documented. Understanding the shortcomings of 
algorithms is key to using them. What a shame, it seems like there is 
some real smartness in there.

Would you like to share your HFSC configuration? (less than the 27k 
lines you refer to in other places will also do :)

Thanks for the pointers, I will look into them.


Simon


Tomasz Paszkowski skrev:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:22:13PM +0200, Simon Lodal wrote:
> 
>>HFSC seems interesting, but does it really work well? I am not afraid of 
>>new stuff, but bleeding edge is probably too risky.
> 
> 
> I'am running HFSC for network with 4,5k users, handling about 100Mb/s internet
> traffic with 25kpacket/s without any problems.
> 
> 
>>That HTB problem, I guess you mean it is possible to have available 
>>bandwidth, but when some of it has been distributed between users, all 
>>users' ceils go below their quantums?
> 
> 
> no
> 
>>But that implies that users have low ceils? Wouldn't it be solved by 
>>setting all users' ceil to the full link bandwidth?
> 
> 
> ceil is set to the full link bandwidth. I dosen't help.
> 
> 
>>The doubly linked list patch you mention, I believe it should be in 
>>vanilla kernel since 2.4.20-22 or something? I use 2.4.27 here. If not, 
>>do you have a link for it?
> 
> 
> 
> http://oss.sgi.com/projects/netdev/archive/2004-08/msg00348.html
> 
> Consider also using rbtree HFSC patches.
> 
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/