On 2014-08-22, Henning Brauer hb-open...@ml.bsws.de wrote:
* Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org [2014-08-22 13:51]:
On 2014-08-22, Henning Brauer hb-open...@ml.bsws.de wrote:
* Federico Giannici giann...@neomedia.it [2014-08-22 09:51]:
On 08/22/14 08:22, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Adam
Henning Brauer [hb-open...@ml.bsws.de] wrote:
Any idea why this was so much less of a problem with altq?
it wasn't... the hfsc core was the same, and cbq worked exactly the same
way too.
People might not have paid as much attention? I dunno.
Raising HZ was frowned upon when I ported
* Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net [2014-08-21 19:13]:
Unless I've mis-understood all the emails and reports about this, it affects
low-bandwidth queues, not low-bandwidth interfaces.
In other words, limiting traffic to 50Mbps on a 1Gb link will work fine,
limiting it to 50kbps on the
On 08/22/14 08:22, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net [2014-08-21 19:13]:
Unless I've mis-understood all the emails and reports about this, it affects
low-bandwidth queues, not low-bandwidth interfaces.
In other words, limiting traffic to 50Mbps on a 1Gb link will work
* Federico Giannici giann...@neomedia.it [2014-08-22 09:51]:
On 08/22/14 08:22, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net [2014-08-21 19:13]:
Unless I've mis-understood all the emails and reports about this, it
affects low-bandwidth queues, not low-bandwidth interfaces.
In
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Henning Brauer hb-open...@ml.bsws.de wrote:
* Federico Giannici giann...@neomedia.it [2014-08-22 09:51]:
On 08/22/14 08:22, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net [2014-08-21 19:13]:
Unless I've mis-understood all the emails and reports
On 2014-08-22, Henning Brauer hb-open...@ml.bsws.de wrote:
* Federico Giannici giann...@neomedia.it [2014-08-22 09:51]:
On 08/22/14 08:22, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net [2014-08-21 19:13]:
Unless I've mis-understood all the emails and reports about this, it
* Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org [2014-08-22 13:51]:
On 2014-08-22, Henning Brauer hb-open...@ml.bsws.de wrote:
* Federico Giannici giann...@neomedia.it [2014-08-22 09:51]:
On 08/22/14 08:22, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net [2014-08-21 19:13]:
Unless
On 22-08-2014 08:58, Henning Brauer wrote:
it wasn't... the hfsc core was the same, and cbq worked exactly the same
way too.
People might not have paid as much attention? I dunno.
I believe it also has something to do with the network cards getting
better and also the internet links speeds
We are using a firewall/qos server with a lot of HFSC queues.
We have just switched to the new queueing system of 5.5.
We'd like to get rid of custom kernels because now there is no longer
the limit of 64 HFSC classes, but I have recently read that there are
still limits to the efficacy of the
On 2014-08-21, Federico Giannici giann...@neomedia.it wrote:
We are using a firewall/qos server with a lot of HFSC queues.
We have just switched to the new queueing system of 5.5.
We'd like to get rid of custom kernels because now there is no longer
the limit of 64 HFSC classes, but I have
Unless I've mis-understood all the emails and reports about this, it affects
low-bandwidth queues, not low-bandwidth interfaces.
In other words, limiting traffic to 50Mbps on a 1Gb link will work fine,
limiting it to 50kbps on the same link will not.
Yes/no?
-Adam
On August 21, 2014 12:03:12
On 08/21/14 19:03, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2014-08-21, Federico Giannici giann...@neomedia.it wrote:
We are using a firewall/qos server with a lot of HFSC queues.
We have just switched to the new queueing system of 5.5.
We'd like to get rid of custom kernels because now there is no longer
On 2014-08-21, Federico Giannici giann...@neomedia.it wrote:
On 08/21/14 19:03, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2014-08-21, Federico Giannici giann...@neomedia.it wrote:
We are using a firewall/qos server with a lot of HFSC queues.
We have just switched to the new queueing system of 5.5.
We'd like
14 matches
Mail list logo
