From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Vladimir B. Savkin" Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6 Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:32:37 +0300 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040131213236.GA3451@usr.lcm.msu.ru> References: <20040126001102.GA12303@usr.lcm.msu.ru> <1075086588.1732.221.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20040126093230.GA17811@usr.lcm.msu.ru> <1075124312.1732.292.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20040126135545.GA19497@usr.lcm.msu.ru> <1075127396.1746.370.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20040131185231.GA2608@usr.lcm.msu.ru> <1075580812.1035.83.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20040131205326.GA3089@usr.lcm.msu.ru> <1075584318.1033.159.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: jamal Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1075584318.1033.159.camel@jzny.localdomain> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > Ok, i think i have understood you finally;-> > The challenge is in this one direction whose characteristics can be > described as follows: In other direction, the goal is the same, but IMQ is not needed, since there is only one Internet link. > a) Incoming pipe (from internet) is smaller than outgoing pipe (to > clients). Yes, and artificial limit is even smaller. > b) Desire is to have excess bwidth with max fairness to all flows > instead of free-for-all scheme. Yes, if you define "flow" as all traffic to one client. Actually, I use two-level hierarchy: in every flow in above sense each micro-flow receives a fair amount of bandwidth (approximatly, using sfq). > [This can only be achieved by a non-work conserving scheduler]. Yes. > > Is the above correct? > It seems so :) ~ :wq With best regards, Vladimir Savkin.