Hi,
nice demo.
While I am not surprised about the good performance of QFQ+,
I do not understand why DRR (I guess linux SFQ, i.e. per-flow DRR+SQdrop)
works so bad.
If the two schedulers are serving the same kind of flow (IP 5-tuple) the
level
of protection to low rate (< fair rate) flows should be the same (approx).
Maybe Paolo said that in the talk and I might have missed something.
Is QFQ+ working on a different definition of flow than DRR?, and is DRR
Linux SFQ?
Luca
On 08/08/2013 06:09 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
very nice and convincing demo.
good job paolo!
luigi
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thought this might be interesting to this list.
---
From: Paolo Valente
Hi,
I just uploaded the following 7-minute video showing the QoS and
the execution time of QFQ+, compared to those of DRR:
http://youtu.be/bG2ACt4na7A
I would like to advertise this video. If I may ask for your help,
do you think that linux-kernel, linux-net or linux-netdev may be
appropriate?
Any other suggestion is more than welcome.
Thanks,
Paolo
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
--
-----------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Prof. Luigi RIZZO, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> .
Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione
http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ <http://www.iet.unipi.it/%7Eluigi/>
. Universita` di Pisa
TEL +39-050-2211611 . via Diotisalvi 2
Mobile +39-338-6809875 . 56122 PISA (Italy)
-----------------------------------------+-------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
