> On May 28, 2015 at 1:49 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:31 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
>
> > The overall product does but the video source feeds come over a different
> > network via UDP. There are, however, RTMP quality control feeds coming
> > across
> >
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:31 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> The overall product does but the video source feeds come over a different
> network via UDP. There are, however, RTMP quality control feeds coming across
> this connection. There may also occasionally be test UDP source fee
> On May 28, 2015 at 1:17 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:33 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
>
> > Our initial testing has been single flow but the ultimate purpose is
> > processing
> > real time video in a complex application which ingests associated meta data,
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:33 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> Our initial testing has been single flow but the ultimate purpose is
> processing
> real time video in a complex application which ingests associated meta data,
> post to consumer facing cloud, does reporting back - so lots
> On May 28, 2015 at 12:26 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 08:45 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > If your experimenting one thing you could do is create many
> > ifb devices and load balance across them from tc. I'm not
> > sure if this would be practical in your setup or not b
> On May 28, 2015 at 11:45 AM John Fastabend wrote:
>
>
> On 05/28/2015 08:30 AM, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> >
> >> On May 28, 2015 at 11:14 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:38 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> IFB has still a lo
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 08:45 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> If your experimenting one thing you could do is create many
> ifb devices and load balance across them from tc. I'm not
> sure if this would be practical in your setup or not but might
> be worth trying.
>
> One thing I've been debating a
On 05/28/2015 08:30 AM, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
On May 28, 2015 at 11:14 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:38 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
IFB has still a long way before being efficient.
In the mean time, you could play with following patch, an
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 11:30 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> Interesting but this is destined to become a critical production system for a
> high profile, internationally recognized product so I am hesitant to patch. I
> doubt I can convince my company to do it but is improving IFB t
> On May 28, 2015 at 11:14 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:38 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
>
> IFB has still a long way before being efficient.
>
> In the mean time, you could play with following patch, and
> setup /sys/class/net/eth0/gro_timeout to 2
>
>
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:38 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> This has been an interesting exercise - thank you for your help along the way,
> Eric. IFB did not seem to bottleneck in our initial testing but there was
> really only one flow of traffic during the test at around 1 Gbps.
> On May 25, 2015 at 6:31 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 16:05 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > Hello, all. One one of our connections we are doing intensive traffic
> > shaping with tc. We are using ifb interfaces for shaping ingress
> > traffic and we also use ifb inte
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 22:52 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> Hmm . . . I've been thinking about that SFQ leaf qdisc. I see that
> newer kernels allow a much higher "limit" than 127 but it still seems
> that the queue depth limit for any one flow is still 127. When we do
> something like GRE/
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 15:31 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 16:05 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > Hello, all. One one of our connections we are doing intensive traffic
> > shaping with tc. We are using ifb interfaces for shaping ingress
> > traffic and we also use ifb in
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 16:05 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> Hello, all. One one of our connections we are doing intensive traffic
> shaping with tc. We are using ifb interfaces for shaping ingress
> traffic and we also use ifb interfaces for egress so that we can apply
> the same set of rule
Hello, all. One one of our connections we are doing intensive traffic
shaping with tc. We are using ifb interfaces for shaping ingress
traffic and we also use ifb interfaces for egress so that we can apply
the same set of rules to multiple interfaces (e.g., tun and eth
interfaces operating on the
16 matches
Mail list logo
