From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer Subject: Re: txqueuelen has wrong units; should be time Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:38:57 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1298793252.8726.45.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20110227125540.40754c5y78j9u2m8@hayate.sektori.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jussi Kivilinna , Eric Dumazet , Mikael Abrahamsson , linux-kernel , To: Albert Cahalan Return-path: Received: from alternativer.internetendpunkt.de ([88.198.24.89]:33001 "EHLO geheimer.internetendpunkt.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754698Ab1B1Pi7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:38:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:33:39 -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote: > I suppose there is a need to allow at least 2 packets despite any > time limits, so that it remains possible to use a traditional modem > even if a huge packet takes several seconds to send. That is a good point! We talk about as we may know every use case of Linux. But this is not true at all. One of my customer for example operates the Linux network stack functionality on top of a proprietary MAC/Driver where the current packet queue characteristic is just fine. The time-drop-approach is unsuitable because the bandwidth can vary in a small amount of time over a great range (0 till max. bandwidth). A sufficient buffering shows up superior in this environment (only IPv{4,6}/UDP). Hagen