From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Furniss Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:04:33 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] HFSC and default qdisc backlog Message-Id: <443D1701.4070404@dsl.pipex.com> List-Id: References: <033e01c64d41$fd1ae8d0$1414a8c0@provsol.int> In-Reply-To: <033e01c64d41$fd1ae8d0$1414a8c0@provsol.int> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org James Nelson wrote: > Thanks for all of your help Patrick! > > Just so I'm clear. If hfsc at the class level shows no overlimits and no > packet dropps, then hfsc is not effecting my traffic any different (from a > throughput perspective computational computer slowness aside) then if i had > no traffic shapping in place? Noting what Patrick says as a caveat. But if you set up a rt class in hfsc at the moment (it may change soon) you can sort of get a feel for what's gone on historically by looking at the requeue counters (can't remember if tc -s class ls will do or tc -s qdisc ls with child queues on the class is needed). If you have a rt class you probably don't want it to ever be backlogged - it won't be very rt anymore (OK you could have short queue & drop). If a rt class has become backlogged in the past then you will see requeues - it may not be perfect, but I would say big number = bad, 0 = good. Andy. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc