On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:56:08PM -1000, Vincent Poy wrote:
> > the above configuration means that if queue 1 is getting a bandwidth
> > X, then queue 2 will get 0.99X, queue 3 will get 0.98X, queue
> > 4 will get 0.97X. Hardly matching any reasonable definition of high-mid-low
> > priority!
>       Hmm, I think I did it that way because 100 is the largest number
> and I didn't decide on how many queues I may add later so the numbers will
> change but does the weight number really mean 99%, 98%, 97% priority?  So
> should it really be 66, 33, and 1?

no, the weights mean exactly what i wrote above, and they
are weights not priorities. As to the values to use,
that's entirely up to you.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to