Re: tc filter mask for ACK packets off?

[Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>]

Le mardi 03 janvier 2012 à 07:18 -0500, John A. Sullivan III a écrit :
> On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 10:36 +0100, Dave Taht wrote:
> <snip>
> > I'd go into more detail, but after what I hope are the final two
> > fixes to sfq and qfq land in the net-next kernel (after some more
> > testing), I like to think I have a more valid approach than this
> > in the works, but that too will require some more development
> > and testing.
> > 
> > http://www.teklibre.com/~d/bloat/pfifo_fast_vs_sfq_qfq_linear.png
> > 
> <snip>
> Hmmm . . . certainly shattered my concerns about replacing pfifo_fast
> with SFQ! Thanks - John

Before you do, take the time to read the warning in sfq source :


	ADVANTAGE:

	- It is very cheap. Both CPU and memory requirements are minimal.

	DRAWBACKS:

	- "Stochastic" -> It is not 100% fair.
	When hash collisions occur, several flows are considered as one.

	- "Round-robin" -> It introduces larger delays than virtual clock
	based schemes, and should not be used for isolating interactive
	traffic	from non-interactive. It means, that this scheduler
	should be used as leaf of CBQ or P3, which put interactive traffic
	to higher priority band.


SFQ (as a direct replacement of dev root qdisc) is fine if most of your trafic
is of same kind/priority.