Le lundi 02 janvier 2012 à 01:40 +0100, Dave Taht a écrit : > SFQ has generally been quite good in many respects. SFQ also does > improved hashing on net-next. But: QFQ seemed very promising also, and > it took until now to see it clearly, with BQL turned on. > > To look in more detail at sfq vs qfq, under even heavier load: > > http://www.teklibre.com/~d/bloat/pfifo_sfq_vs_qfq_linear50.png > > It's really very rare in my life that I've seen a win vs an existing > system of these orders of magnitude. It's taken me a week to make sure > the results were real, and repeatable... I thought about sitting on > them for a while longer actually. I'd really like someone else to > repeat these tests and tell me I'm not seeing things! > > I have hopes QFQ will do even better at 10Mbit vs SFQ.
Happy New Year Dave This makes no sense to me. For most uses on a host or residential router, SFQ should perform the same than QFQ. QFQ is the thing you want to use on a big node, when SFQ limits are reached (SFQ as implemented in linux : at most 127 concurrent flows, and at most 127 packets in queue. This could be changed with an increase of memory cost [ which are really small anyway : about 4 Kbytes per SFQ queue ]. A "nolimit" implementation could use a dynamic memory allocator schem, eventually consuming less memory on typical use :) Please try the patch I posted this morning to solve this SFQ bug. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/133793/ _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat