On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:58:50PM +0100, Vincent Blut wrote:
> > > I think the distinction is that the other packages that tweak sysctl
> > > values don't claim to be doing so on behalf of the kernel team. If
> > > the
> > > kernel team is responsible for the values being set, then the
> > > sett
Hi,
Le 2021-01-21 00:43, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 14:46 -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:39:16PM +0100, Vincent Blut wrote:
> > > > We could do that. However, in the past (earlier in this bug,
> > > > even) it's
> > > > been pointed out that other
On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 14:46 -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:39:16PM +0100, Vincent Blut wrote:
> > > We could do that. However, in the past (earlier in this bug,
> > > even) it's
> > > been pointed out that other packages should not be responsible
> > > for
> > > setting
Le 2021-01-20 14:46, Noah Meyerhans a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:39:16PM +0100, Vincent Blut wrote:
> > > We could do that. However, in the past (earlier in this bug, even) it's
> > > been pointed out that other packages should not be responsible for
> > > setting kernel policies, so cha
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:39:16PM +0100, Vincent Blut wrote:
> > We could do that. However, in the past (earlier in this bug, even) it's
> > been pointed out that other packages should not be responsible for
> > setting kernel policies, so changes like this should be the
> > responsibility of the
Le 2021-01-20 13:58, Noah Meyerhans a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:22:16PM +0100, Vincent Blut wrote:
> > My proposal would differ from yours though in that it would not touch the
> > kernel
> > configuration but would instead consist in patching procps to provide a
> > configuration file
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + patch
Bug #890343 [linux] systemd: Debian could use the fq_codel network queuing
algorithm by default
Added tag(s) patch.
--
890343: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=890343
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with pr
Control: tags -1 + patch
A proposed patch is at
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/309
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:22:16PM +0100, Vincent Blut wrote:
> My proposal would differ from yours though in that it would not touch the
> kernel
> configuration but would instead consist in patching procps to provide a
> configuration file (let's say default_qdisc.conf) to set the value of the
>
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:29:44PM -0300, Ivan Baldo wrote:
> I think we want the mq qdisc to distribute the load between cores, to
> support very high speed network cards or too slow CPUs.
Yep, you're right. Though it's not about CPU cores, but about tx queues
on the NIC hardware.
> Also
Hi Noah,
Le 2021-01-07 16:12, Noah Meyerhans a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> > #890343 was originally opened against systemd asking to install the upstream
> > systemd sysctl.d/50-default.conf file that sets:
> >
> > net.core.default_qdisc = fq_codel
>
Hello.
Not an expert nor kernel developer, etc., just simple sysadmin
here, but will answer anyway since nobody did yet.
I think we want the mq qdisc to distribute the load between cores,
to support very high speed network cards or too slow CPUs.
Also, if net.core.default_qd
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> #890343 was originally opened against systemd asking to install the upstream
> systemd sysctl.d/50-default.conf file that sets:
>
> net.core.default_qdisc = fq_codel
>
> As explained in #950701 (and the systemd debian changelog) the
On 4/23/20 4:24 PM, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
fq_codel is better in every way than pfifo_fast and I am unaware of any
reason why it would not be a better default. (but don't trust me, ask the
kernel networking experts)
Isn't CAKE suppos
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> fq_codel is better in every way than pfifo_fast and I am unaware of any
> reason why it would not be a better default. (but don't trust me, ask the
> kernel networking experts)
Isn't CAKE supposed to be even better than fq_codel, incl
#890343 was originally opened against systemd asking to install the
upstream systemd sysctl.d/50-default.conf file that sets:
net.core.default_qdisc = fq_codel
As explained in #950701 (and the systemd debian changelog) the debian
systemd maintainers felt that systemd in debian should not be ch
16 matches
Mail list logo
