RE: [LARTC] beta-release of H-FSC port for Linux 2.6

["Griem, Hans T" <hans.t.griem@boeing.com>]

Hello Patrick,

I read the abstract and introduction to original H-FSC paper.  I believe it was mostly about decoupling bw and delay.
It seems to me HTB does this well.  When and/or why would I would want to use H-FSC versus HTB or are they direct competitors?

Curious,

Torsten

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick McHardy [mailto:kaber@trash.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 10:05 AM
To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Subject: [LARTC] beta-release of H-FSC port for Linux 2.6


I've done a port of the altq H-FSC packet scheduler for linux 2.6.
It's still in beta stage but it's running for about two weeks here
without problems (and excellent shaping results). There is no
documentation, so it's at best for the playful at the moment.
The patches are available at http://trash.net/~kaber/hfsc
If you are looking for 2.4 patches, there are none at the moment
but it's a 5 minute effort so if you need them please ask.

Please note due to a lack of time I will only answer basic usage
questions at this point and for sure I won't review tc scripts
without detailed bug reports.

Have Fun,
Patrick


BTW: on a related issue, IMQ is looking for a new maintainer.
     If you are interested please contact me.



_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/