On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 19:28 +0200, MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN wrote: > On 04/22/2015 07:16 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > sch_fq adds *pacing*, which in itself has benefits, regardless of fair > > queues : Smaller bursts, less self inflicted drops. > > This I understand. But it can't protect from non self inflicted drops. It really does. This is why we deployed sch_fq and let our competitors find this later. > > > > > If flows are competing, this is the role of Congestion Control module, > > not packet schedulers / AQM. > > Exactly. Two same CC modules competing on the same link, one w pacing > the other one w/o pacing. > The latter will have negative impact on the former in FIFO. Not in FQ > (fq_codel to clarify). Not on modern linux kernels, thanks to TCP Small Queues. > And that's my incentive argument which comes from the flow isolation > feature of FQ (_codel). fq_codel is not something you can deploy on the backbone routers, for known reasons. sch_fq is something you can deploy on hosts, where the codel part is irrelevant anyway (because of TCP Small Queues in modern linux kernels) _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
