[LARTC] RE: Anything out there that is similar to Cisco's WFQ?
Paul writes: No SFQ is not like WFQ... WRR is the closest thing to cisco's fair-queue.. WRR keeps track of the connections using the ip_conntrack .. that's sort of what cisco's fair-queue does and it checks the bandwidth streams and gives lower priority to the higher streams and larger packets.. it's meant to reduce latency for traffic shaping and it does :) I haven't tried WRR but it looks like the closest thing to it although it doesn't take everything in to account as cisco's flow based WFQ does.. This is not very convincing. Do you actually know how WFQ works? If so, please tell us. The doc you sent did not describe how it works but what the effects are, and those are entirely consistent with what SFQ does. High bandwidth flows are limited, low bandwidth flows get lower latency. Can you describe some effect that's different? ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] RE: Anything out there that is similar to Cisco's WFQ?
This is not very convincing. Do you actually know how WFQ works? If so, please tell us. The doc you sent did not describe how it works but what the effects are, and those are entirely consistent with what SFQ does. High bandwidth flows are limited, low bandwidth flows get lower latency. Can you describe some effect that's different? I read a bit on WFQ earlier, Im not grasping it totally and I dont know every implementation detail, but I think its basically WRR but taking actual bandwidth usage into account, and not just packet-counts. Well, try this: http://www.sics.se/~ianm/WFQ/wfq_descrip/node21.html Im sure you all can get more out of it than me, a total newbie to queueing theory and QoS. --- John Bäckstrand ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] RE: Anything out there that is similar to Cisco's WFQ?
=?iso-8859-1?Q?John_B=E4ckstrand?= writes: This is not very convincing. Do you actually know how WFQ works? If so, please tell us. The doc you sent did not describe how it works but what the effects are, and those are entirely consistent with what SFQ does. High bandwidth flows are limited, low bandwidth flows get lower latency. Can you describe some effect that's different? I read a bit on WFQ earlier, Im not grasping it totally and I dont know every implementation detail, but I think its basically WRR but taking actual bandwidth usage into account, and not just packet-counts. Well, try this: http://www.sics.se/~ianm/WFQ/wfq_descrip/node21.html This sounds just like SFQ except for the weights. I have a variant of SFQ that does support weights if that's important. It's easy to add. (The hard part is the code that allows you to configure the weights.) I was under the impression that the weights of WFQ isnt actually supposed to be set manually, but rather automatically. This page has a nice picture of WFQ (I think) http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/732/Tech/wfq/ It says: Weight determined by: *Required QoS (IP Procedure, RSVP) *Flow throughput inversely proportional *Frame relay FECN, BECN, DE (for FR Traffic) Only think I actually understood was Flow throughput inversely proportional which is a property I am looking for when trying to find a traffic control implementation. --- John Bäckstrand ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] RE: Anything out there that is similar to Cisco's WFQ?
Btw, about the original question (havent got the original email left), there is a WFQ implementation for ALTQ and FreeBSD, but it seems to not work too well: http://www.criticalsoftware.com/research/pdf/Paper-PS.p df http://corn.eos.nasa.gov/qos/qos_results_summary_july98 .html --- John Bäckstrand ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
