On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Jan Ceuleers
> wrote:
> > On 22/11/16 16:32, Dave Taht wrote:
> >> What's left to do?
> >
> > Furthering adoption of the code that contains the bloat-related
> >
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Jan Ceuleers wrote:
> On 22/11/16 16:32, Dave Taht wrote:
>> What's left to do?
>
> Furthering adoption of the code that contains the bloat-related
> improvements.
>
> In my view, the single biggest potential contributor towards driving
>
On 22/11/16 16:32, Dave Taht wrote:
> What's left to do?
Furthering adoption of the code that contains the bloat-related
improvements.
In my view, the single biggest potential contributor towards driving
such adoption would be for Ookla to start measuring and reporting
bufferbloat, thereby
What's left to do?
What else can we do?
What should we stop doing?
What can we do better?
--
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
I just suppose this is not possible since it is a virtual driver with no
real device attached, right?
Given this, codel and fq_codel are not as effective as they could on a
VMware guest?
Could it eventually be implemented by vmxnet3 querying the host devices?
Thanks.