Hi,Jason

Please don't drop the mailing list.

On 2014年12月11日 19:06, 許東豐 wrote:
> Dear Mr. Takahashi
>     Thank you very much for replying. I have tried your proposed method and 
> it worked as expected. 
>     However, I also tried your proposed method but the priority values for 
> port 5001 and 5002 are the same, 
>     it showed the same result(please see attachment 1). 

Yes. It should be the same result.
Because "priority" means the priority of the flow entry.
In this test, even if set to any value the "priority", should not affect the 
result.

>     And I still have two more questions, 
>     does your QoS mechanism have the priority function? For example, 
>     server bandwidth is allocated by the clients based on their priority ? 

I have attached an overview of my proposed method.
I think that server bandwidth is allocated by the clients priority.

>     And what's the major difference between the priority of flow 
> entry(7.3.4.1 Modify Flow Entry Message)
>     and the priority of QoS mechanism mentioned in the Ryu Online 
> documentation_QoS Chapter?

>the priority of QoS mechanism mentioned in the Ryu Online documentation_QoS 
>Chapter?

Is Where the point?
If this point,
https://github.com/osrg/ryu-book/blame/master/ja/source/rest_qos.rst#L222
This point means the priority of the flow entry.

>     I would appreciate your kind help!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 2014-12-11 10:08 GMT+08:00 Minoru TAKAHASHI <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>:
> 
>     Hi,Json
> 
>     >However, in terms of priority values, port 5002 was supposed to have the 
> higher priority value and occupy the bandwidth but its bandwidth dropped at 
> >t = 4 after the client 1(port 5001, priority = 1) made a request of data.
>     >It seemed that the priority setting didn’t work at all.
> 
>         curl -X POST -d '{"priority":"3",
>                           "match": {"nw_dst": "10.0.0.1", "nw_proto": "UDP", 
> "tp_dst": "5002"},
>                           "actions":{"queue": "0"}}' 
> http://localhost:8080/qos/rules/0000000000000001
> 
>     "priority" of this command means that matching precedence of the flow 
> entry.
>     (Please check "7.3.4.1 Modify Flow Entry Message" of OFSpec 1.3.4.)
>     Therefore, there is no related to priority of QoS.
> 
>     >Therefore, could you provide me a testing approach to verify the 
> priority mechanism?
> 
>     If you want to treat CL2 as a high priority than CL1,
>     For example, Why do not try to set as follows?
> 
>     Change before (current))
>       port 5001 (CL1) -> Set to Queue 0 (max_rate: 0.85M bits / sec)
>       port 5002 (CL2) -> Set to Queue 0 (max_rate: 0.85M bits / sec)
> 
>     After the change)
>       port 5001 (CL1) -> Set to Queue 0 (max_rate: 0.2M bits / sec)
>       port 5002 (CL2) -> Set to Queue 1 (min_rate: 0.85M bits / sec)
> 
>     The result should be as follows:
>       * The traffic sent to the port 5001 is shaped with up to 200Kbps.
>       * The traffic sent to the port 5002 is guaranteed 850Kbps bandwidth.
> 
>     On 2014年12月10日 13:52, 許東豐 wrote:
>     > To whom it may concern:
>     >     My name is Jason. My team members and are are working the the QoS 
> priority setting these days. We have modified the code(rest_qos.py) as 
> indicated on the Gitnub and tried it. However, we couldn't make sure that the 
> priority mechanism works or not in our testing case. Could you please offer 
> us one simple approach to show the QoS priority mechanism works ? Our testing 
> case PDF file is attached to the mailed and I have described the problems in 
> the file. We have difficulty in demonstrating the QoS Priority mechanism to 
> our supervisors. We would appreciate your kind help!
>     >
>     > --
>     > Best wishes,
>     >
>     > Jason Syu
>     >
>     > Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering,
>     > National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST)
>     > Email(1): [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>     > Email(2): [email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>     > Tel :  0910137762
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
>     > from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
>     > with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & 
> more
>     > Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
>     > 
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=164703151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Ryu-devel mailing list
>     > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ryu-devel
>     >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Jason Syu
> 
> Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering,
> National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST)
> Email(1): [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Email(2): [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Tel :  0910137762
> 

Attachment: Qos-priority-example.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=164703151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ryu-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ryu-devel

Reply via email to