On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 at 01:25, Emmanuel Nyarko <emmankoko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 18 Jun 2025, at 6:54 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus <m...@netbsd.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 03:11:30PM +0000, Emmanuel Nyarko wrote: > >> 1. Remove all the existing disciplines (openBSD has taken this step > >> already) > > > > That will break the setups of long-time users. > > > > But if fq-codel is able to replace all existing disciplines, perhaps > > you could keep the existing configuration keywords for other disciplines, > > and use them to configure fq-codel to emulate the old disciplines. > > sadly, that doesn’t look possible. Fq-codel is just three params(IRC) and the > rest are a lot for a single queue.
If there really no useful setups which fq-codel could replace? Including "I need to simulate packet loss and odd bandwidth behaviour to stress my other systems"? If so, I think there are two aspects to "replace everything with fq-codel": - Can existing configuration syntax recognised and mapped to fq-codel (likely with a run-time warning), which could be done in one of two ways - Map each existing discipline to a given default fq-codel config - As above, but take some subset of the params to adjust fq-codel (very much only a subset) Given the above, would there be any significant functional regressions in any existing ALTQ installations were converted to fq-codel? Thanks David
