On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:08 AM Pete Heist <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Aug 22, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > adding a basic shaper to fq_codel itself is kind of trivial. You need > > to check if you are shaping > > > > this was 40% faster than tbf + fq_codel in the good ole days and I > > Aha, ok, I didn't there was that much to be gained in serial performance. > > > versions of cake... dunno. I *personally* need an inbound shaper that > > cracks 120mbit on mips hardware. > > The FreeNet guys upgraded our sector to AC last week, so I switched to a > PowerBeam AC (wrecked my legs straddling the peak of a 45 degree roof for > half a day). Anyway, I would also like if my ER-X (32-bit mips) had some more > headroom to run something codel-like. It can do it, but it starts to > struggle. Mine is currently an htb+cake setup.
well, how much cpu can you claw back with tbf + fq_codel? note that tbf IS sensitive to the burst size. 64k might be too much. Or too little. > > ... > > I hadn't thought about additionally parallelizing the workload (which > > has problems like adding way more queues than I'd like) much. > > I thought there was already some discussion about that wrt lockless qdisc > support, which doesn’t mean adding more queues, or multiple qdisc instances, > does it? Perhaps my understanding of what that does and use of the term “smp” > was loose... -- Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619 _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
