From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Furniss Subject: Re: Request to include ESFQ patch Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:01:40 +0000 Message-ID: <478133A4.4020903@andyfurniss.entadsl.com> References: <20080102155903.M66678@visp.net.lb> Reply-To: lists@andyfurniss.entadsl.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bugfood-c@fatooh.org To: Denys Fedoryshchenko Return-path: Received: from mx1.ukfsn.org ([77.75.108.10]:47818 "EHLO mail.ukfsn.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752704AbYAFUdv (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:33:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080102155903.M66678@visp.net.lb> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > Hi > > I took risk and installed ESFQ on my main backbone QoS. I found it highly > useful, and very need in setup's where is more than 128 flows passing and > especially where is nat available. I agree it will be good when it's in. > > Here is results with overloaded class for low-priority P2P traffic customers: > *sfq was never meant for interactive traffic as such. If you really want to do QOS for them you would need to (somehow) classify interactive and give it prio over bulk. I know this may not be practical for your setup, but what ping times users get will vary depending how many other active users there are/queue length/how many tcps the user has open etc. Andy.