I think he did answer your question, if you read between the lines.. A session
cannot be 'pushed' to max! It needs to demand the bandwidth in the first place.
Try reading this; http://trash.net/~kaber/hfsc/SIGCOM97.pdf
This along side /many/ other Internet pages allowed us to fully implement and
Hello Henning,
Friday, October 18, 2013, 5:37:23 AM, you wrote:
>> I extensively use cbq and very confused by the current queuing manual. It
>> seems that actual speed will be somewhere between "min" and "max" (and wont
>> be equal to "bandwidth"), but how to get an idea where?
HB> bandwidth i
* Boris Goldberg [2013-10-17 15:59]:
> You probably need to mention that the new queuing is using hfsc model and
> what hfsc model is.
I don't think anyone should have to care what algorithm is being used
under the hood.
> I extensively use cbq and very confused by the current queuing manual
* Johan Beisser [2013-10-16 21:09]:
> Right. I guess if I want to define multiple queues for matching
> traffic, I need to either redo the filter rules to use tagging*, or
> simply do it per outbound bit of traffic.
let's make that outright clear: defining queues is for bandwidth
shaping only. th
> It might be a good idea to return the altq section to the pf.conf man
> page for current.
No. It would be better to remove the support now.
Documenting the past and the future together never works.
The old stuff is going away and does not need documenting.
Hello Otto,
Wednesday, October 16, 2013, 10:05:04 AM, you wrote:
OM> This will not be in 5.4, it wil be in 5.5. If you see shortcomings in
OM> the docs explain in more detail.
It might be a good idea to return the altq section to the pf.conf man
page for current.
You probably need to mention
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Norman Golisz wrote:
> On Wed Oct 16 2013 08:54, Johan Beisser wrote:
>> Or cam I still just do very basic priority queueing in 5.5?
>
> See pf.conf(5), 'set prio'. This doesn't even require you to define
> queues, etc.
Right. I guess if I want to define multiple
On Wed Oct 16 2013 08:54, Johan Beisser wrote:
> Or cam I still just do very basic priority queueing in 5.5?
See pf.conf(5), 'set prio'. This doesn't even require you to define
queues, etc.
Boris Goldberg writes:
> The changes in the pf queueing subsystem (for some reason not mentioned
> in the http://openbsd.org/faq/upgrade54.html) are getting me worried.
The new queueing system was only committed on October 12th 2013, well
after 5.4 was cut and sent off to the CD printers. But
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 8:05, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> This will not be in 5.4, it wil be in 5.5. If you see shortcomings in
> the docs explain in more detail.
I just read the QUEUEING section in the man page. Seems fairly clear to me, and
in some ways more clear.
One thing I'd like to see is a sug
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0500, Boris Goldberg wrote:
> Hello misc,
>
> The changes in the pf queueing subsystem (for some reason not mentioned
> in the http://openbsd.org/faq/upgrade54.html) are getting me worried.
> Couldn't find the word "altq" in the
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi
2013/10/16 Boris Goldberg
> Is the old queueing gone? Is existing pf.conf not going to work with 5.4?
>
>
>
The new queueing doesn't appear until 5.5, so 5.4 will most certainly work
without you doing anything related to your pf.conf.
--
May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Boris Goldberg wrote:
> Hello misc,
>
> The changes in the pf queueing subsystem (for some reason not mentioned
> in the http://openbsd.org/faq/upgrade54.html) are getting me worried.
> Couldn't find the word "altq" in the
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.c
13 matches
Mail list logo
