Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> writes: >>>> I think I agree with Juliusz here, I'd prefer Babel stay truthful and >>>> instead change how fq_codel reacts to it. > >>> Yeah, perhaps fq_codel is not tolerant enough of bursts of packets. > >> Heh, I'm not sure there's a proper response to a large burst of >> back-to-back packets that won't suck for all other traffic... > > I'm not a specialist, but my uneducated intuition would be that > fq_codel can be tuned less agressively than plain codel -- the FQ > element will prevent undue delay for unrelated flows.
Yeah, it will hurt other flows less (or not at all), but that will impact the intra-flow latency of TCP flows that do build a queue. So it's a tradeoff... -Toke _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
