Hi Jonathan, hi Dave,
On March 23, 2015 3:10:52 AM GMT+01:00, Jonathan Morton <chromati...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> On 23 Mar, 2015, at 03:45, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
>>
>> are we running into performance issues with fq_codel? I thought all
>the problems were with HTB or ingress shaping.
>
>Cake is, in part, a response to the HTB problem; it is a few percent
>more efficient so far than an equivalent HTB+fq_codel combination. It
>will have a few other novel features, too.
>
>Bobbie is a response to the ingress-shaping problem. A policer (with
>no queue) can be run without involving an IFB device, which we believe
>has a large overhead.
This is testable, if nobody beats me to it I will try this week. The
main idea is to replace the ingress shaping on ge00 with egress shaping on the
interface between the client and the router, so most likely se00 in cerowrt.
This should effectively behave as the current sqm setup with ingress shaping,
though only for hosts on se00. Of ifb truly is costly this setup should show
better bandwidth use in rrul tests than the default. It obviously degrade local
performance of se00 and hence be not a true solution unless one is happy to
fully dedicate a box as shaper ;)
Best Regards
Sebastian
>
> - Jonathan Morton
>
>_______________________________________________
>Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
