Hi Toke,
> On Apr 24, 2018, at 11:30, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> writes: > [...] >>> >>> I don't think we can make assumptions on ISP deployments. >> >> Sure we do not really need to: >> https://forum.lede-project.org/t/transparent-cake-box/2161/4?u=moeller0 >> and >> https://forum.lede-project.org/t/lede-as-a-dedicated-qos-bufferbloat-appliance/1861/14?u=moeller0 >> so it looks like one person already use cake in an small ISP context. >> Now 1 is not a very convincing number, but certainly larger than >> zero... > > Well I just meant that there are many ways to deploy a shaper in an ISP > context (centrally in the network, at the next hop from the customer, > etc). Ah, sorry, I fully agree; and if ISPs are interested they should start talking; I just wanted to report the one case where cake seems to be used in an ISP-ish context. > > Looking at those threads, they seem to be increasing the number of > queues. Not sure they need to, but, well, there's nothing in principle > that says this couldn't be configurable (it is in FQ-CoDel). It would > need a bit of a reorg of the current code, though, so that would be a > thing for later I guess... I had hoped that orangetek could be convinced to do measurements with different number of queues to answer that question, but I guess the current default of 1000 queues is decent for a typical homenet, but will simply become a bit tight with 600 concurrent households (I assume that its the peak usage that would want more queues on the "back-haul", on average 1000 might still be okay, especially with Jonathan's clever set associativity design) Best Regards Sebastian > > -Toke _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
