On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:41:40PM +0530, Babu Shanmugam wrote: > On Friday 22 April 2016 10:51 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:44:12PM +0530, bscha...@redhat.com wrote: > >>From: Babu Shanmugam <bscha...@redhat.com> > >> > >>Following are done through this series > >>1. Changed the old approach of policing the packets. It is now shaped > >> with queues. Changed the Logical_Port options for NB db > >>2. Support of DSCP marking through options field in Logical_Port table > >> > >>Babu Shanmugam (2): > >> ovn: Replace the QOS policing parameters with the usage of QOS table > >> ovn: QOS DSCP markings for ports > >Have you tested this? There are at least two aspects that seem relevant > >to testing. First, propagating queuing through tunnels is somewhat > >indirect and one needs to make sure that the QoS configuration actually > >makes it to the physical device. Second, HTB has a reputation for poor > >quality for links above about 1 Gbps, which isn't very fast > >anymore--that's why we also support HFSC. > Ben, I have not tested these aspects. The reason I used HTB is mainly > because it supports > burst setting. From vswithc.conf.db man page, HFSC does not seem to have an > option > for burst setting. > I could not understand how "propagating queuing through tunnels is somewhat > indirect". I can test it if you > can give some more information on the problem.
Usually for shaping it only makes sense to configure it on the physical NIC network device. Does your series do that? If you haven't tested it, it's hard for me to imagine it working. Why is burst setting valuable? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
