I've heard that WFQ at this speed is detrimental due to the time it takes to process the queues. That ends up leading to a longer delay than any congestion would cause.
John >>> "s vermill" 2/8/02 4:04:20 PM >>> All, Would you be so kind as to share your thoughts/experience with WFQ on high speed links? I know that Cisco generally considers it to be unnecessary on links greater than 2 Mbps. I have a client with a 16 Mbps HSSI connection between 3640 routers. The config has been in place for a long time. However, the circuit does not seem to support the throughput that they should be getting. I finally got them to share a copy of the config file. Not only is WFQ enabled, but the congestive discard value was left at a default 64 messages. I am wondering if this is just unnecessary or if it is/can be detrimental? As I said, there are indications that there are throughput issues. Please note that I am just looking for comments. Unfortunately, I have never had my hands on any of their equipment (yet). Thus, I have no debug or even visual observations to offer. All of my information is third party. Just trying to understand the wisdom of using WFQ in this environment. Many thanks, Scott Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34924&t=34913 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
