Dave Taht wrote:
On Sep 25, 2013 9:58 AM, Eric Dumazet
eric.duma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:38 +0200, Luca MUSCARIELLO wrote:
Then, I feel like FQ is a bad name to call this newFQ.
It's an implementation of a fair TCP pacer. Which is very useful, but
FQ is kind of
On Sep 25, 2013 9:58 AM, Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:38 +0200, Luca MUSCARIELLO wrote:
Then, I feel like FQ is a bad name to call this newFQ.
It's an implementation of a fair TCP pacer. Which is very useful, but FQ
is kind of misleading, IMHO.
No
On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 14:25 +0200, James Roberts wrote:
No one responded to Luca's Sept 1 comment (on the bloat list) that the
new code seems to do tail drop rather than longest queue drop.
If this is so, bandwidth sharing will not be fair since FQ alone is
not enough. This was shown in
Le 25/09/2013 17:15, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 14:25 +0200, James Roberts wrote:
No one responded to Luca's Sept 1 comment (on the bloat list) that the
new code seems to do tail drop rather than longest queue drop.
If this is so, bandwidth sharing will not be fair since FQ
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:38 +0200, Luca MUSCARIELLO wrote:
Then, I feel like FQ is a bad name to call this newFQ.
It's an implementation of a fair TCP pacer. Which is very useful, but FQ
is kind of misleading, IMHO.
No problem, feel free to send a patch. I am very bad at choosing names.
