From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olaf Kirch Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc1: Volanomark slowdown Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:29:55 +0100 Message-ID: <20061108162955.GA4364@suse.de> References: <1162924354.10806.172.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1163001318.3138.346.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@sunset.davemloft.net, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42730 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161138AbWKHQaK (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:30:10 -0500 To: Arjan van de Ven Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1163001318.3138.346.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 04:55:18PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > I wonder if it's an option to use low priority QoS fields for these acks > (heck I don't even know if ACKs have such fields in their packet) so > that they can get dropped if there are more packets then there is > bandwidth .... Is it proven that the number of ACKs actually cause bandwidth problems? I found Volanomark to exercise the scheduler more than anything else, so maybe the slowdown, while triggered by an increased number of ACKs, is caused by something else entirely. Olaf -- Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Must be a chicken.