[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CBQ vs. TBF
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 email@example.com wrote:
> > clock (~ .97) to a 2048HZ clock (~ .5ms)? I don't mind wasting a
> > little CPU to get better control.
> It does not contradict to anything.
> Well, try. I never tried this before.
> Only you also have to fix drivers to shrink their DMA chains
> (it depends on driver, tulip has length 16, which is good for 1msec
> timer) and to add some missing definitions to pkt_sched.h
> (it handles only 100 and 1024 now)
I will be looking into this. I will be building a system
shortly that will be perfect to test this on. As I have to setup a
lab to profile out new Athlon box I will add this to the planned
So far on the list I have
Testing maxburst values on various flow levels.
Testing HZ=2048 on packet scheduling.
BTW: How does this all interact with multiple interfaces? What
happens when the workload from say 4 100Mbit interfaces doing CBQ is
introduced? What happens if JIFFIE < workload instead of JIFFIE >
As folks might have suspected, not much survives except roaches,
and they don't carry large enough packets fast enough...
--About the Internet and nuclear war.