From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:43:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] CBQ and WRR Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Christian Worm Mortensen wrote: > > Yes, but in the howto also a qdisc named WRR is mentioned. What HOWTO? Is this one of those schedulers that Martin wrote? Never paid much attention; Maybe because i never thought that WRR was important once we had DRR. > > A quick search on Google BTW said that DRR is only better in terms > of speed of the implementation but is worse in terms distribution bandwidth. WRR works well when you apriori know the packet/cell sizes (eg in ATM). If you cant do this, then WRR is unfair once you start having a lot of flows going or you mistweak your weights etc. DRR fixes this. The improvements on computation comes in as a bonus _not_ as the advantage of DRR over WRR. Why dont you read the classical paper at: http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm95/papers/shreedhar.html cheers, jamal _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/