Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 03:34:23PM -0400, Matthew Pope wrote:
I must correct my test parameters: In one of the two pipes, the bw was
4K, not 48K as stated.
When I just now moved it up to 48K to match the other pipe size, my ping
times plummeted to 129-139ms throughout the
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 03:34:23PM -0400, Matthew Pope wrote:
> I must correct my test parameters: In one of the two pipes, the bw was
> 4K, not 48K as stated.
> When I just now moved it up to 48K to match the other pipe size, my ping
> times plummeted to 129-139ms throughout the Queue sizes lis
I must correct my test parameters: In one of the two pipes, the bw was
4K, not 48K as stated.
When I just now moved it up to 48K to match the other pipe size, my ping
times plummeted to 129-139ms throughout the Queue sizes listed below,
again with Q=120 getting total packet loss.
I thought a p
Hello,
I've been reading about dummynet for 2 weeks, including the seminal ACM
paper & I'm very impressed. I've configured and run some preliminary
simulations that have my colleagues quite interested too.
However, I'm finding my delay settings are yielding delays of about two
orders of magn