Hi to all, i''m following this guide (http://www.opalsoft.net/qos/DS-28.htm), is very detailed, but i''m a bit confused about queuing disciplinse of leaf classes. In this guide the author uses PFIFO (see the scheme that i attached at message) in this way: # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:22 handle 220: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:23 handle 230: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:24 handle 240: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:31 handle 310: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:32 handle 320: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:33 handle 330: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:34 handle 340: pfifo lmit 10 But is not better use SFQ, like this? # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: sfq preturb 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:22 handle 220: sfq preturb 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:23 handle 230: sfq preturb 10 . . . What''s the real difference? Best Regards -- Stefano Mainardi Presidente Associazione ILDN - Italian Linux Distro Network Mobile: 349/3917212 Skype: mainardistefano IM (ICQ): 250-292-408 Blog: http://www.mainardistefano.org _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Hi to all, i''m following this guide (http://www.opalsoft.net/qos/DS-28.htm), is very detailed, but i''m a bit confused about queuing disciplinse of leaf classes. In this guide the author uses PFIFO (see the scheme that i attached at message) in this way: # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:22 handle 220: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:23 handle 230: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:24 handle 240: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:31 handle 310: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:32 handle 320: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:33 handle 330: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:34 handle 340: pfifo lmit 10 But is not better use SFQ, like this? # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: sfq preturb 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:22 handle 220: sfq preturb 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:23 handle 230: sfq preturb 10 . . . What''s the real difference? Best Regards -- Stefano Mainardi Presidente Associazione ILDN - Italian Linux Distro Network Mobile: 349/3917212 Skype: mainardistefano IM (ICQ): 250-292-408 Blog: http://www.mainardistefano.org
Eliot, Wireless and Server Administrator, Great Lakes Internet
2006-Jun-01 19:12 UTC
RE: For leaf classes is best PFIFO or SFQ?
SFQ would be the better option in most cases since it prioritizes packets based on flows in a round-robin fashion. Essentially, it allows multiple flows to receive equal bandwidth in a given class. PFIFO would allow one flow to starve out the rest. Eliot Gable Certified Wireless Network Administrator (CWNA) Certified Wireless Security Professional (CWSP) Cisco Certified Network Associate (CCNA) CompTIA Security+ Certified CompTIA Network+ Certified Network and System Engineer Great Lakes Internet, Inc. 112 North Howard Croswell, MI 48422 (810) 679-3395 (877) 558-8324 Now offering Broadband Wireless Internet access in Croswell, Lexington, Brown City, Yale, Worth Township, and Sandusky. Call for details. -----Original Message----- From: lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl [mailto:lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl] On Behalf Of Stefano Mainardi Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:32 AM To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl Subject: [LARTC] For leaf classes is best PFIFO or SFQ? Hi to all, i''m following this guide (http://www.opalsoft.net/qos/DS-28.htm), is very detailed, but i''m a bit confused about queuing disciplinse of leaf classes. In this guide the author uses PFIFO (see the scheme that i attached at message) in this way: # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:22 handle 220: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:23 handle 230: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:24 handle 240: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:31 handle 310: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:32 handle 320: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:33 handle 330: pfifo lmit 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:34 handle 340: pfifo lmit 10 But is not better use SFQ, like this? # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: sfq preturb 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:22 handle 220: sfq preturb 10 # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:23 handle 230: sfq preturb 10 . . . What''s the real difference? Best Regards -- Stefano Mainardi Presidente Associazione ILDN - Italian Linux Distro Network Mobile: 349/3917212 Skype: mainardistefano IM (ICQ): 250-292-408 Blog: http://www.mainardistefano.org _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Stefano Mainardi wrote:> Hi to all, > i''m following this guide (http://www.opalsoft.net/qos/DS-28.htm), is > very detailed, but i''m a bit confused about queuing disciplinse of > leaf classes. > > In this guide the author uses PFIFO (see the scheme that i attached at > message) in this way: > > # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo lmit 10rather that way: # tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo limit 10 Jarek P.
2006/6/2, Jarek Poplawski <jarkap@poczta.onet.pl>:> > Stefano Mainardi wrote: > > Hi to all, > > i''m following this guide (http://www.opalsoft.net/qos/DS-28.htm), is > > very detailed, but i''m a bit confused about queuing disciplinse of > > leaf classes. > > > > In this guide the author uses PFIFO (see the scheme that i attached at > > message) in this way: > > > > # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo lmit 10 > > rather that way: > > # tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo limit 10therefore??? I do not understand ... -- Stefano Mainardi Presidente Associazione ILDN - Italian Linux Distro Network Mobile: 349/3917212 Skype: mainardistefano IM (ICQ): 250-292-408 Blog: http://www.mainardistefano.org _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Dnia piątek, 2 czerwca 2006 13:09, Stefano Mainardi napisał(a):> 2006/6/2, Jarek Poplawski <jarkap@poczta.onet.pl>: > > Stefano Mainardi wrote: > > > Hi to all, > > > i''m following this guide (http://www.opalsoft.net/qos/DS-28.htm), is > > > very detailed, but i''m a bit confused about queuing disciplinse of > > > leaf classes. > > > > > > In this guide the author uses PFIFO (see the scheme that i attached at > > > message) in this way: > > > > > > # tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo lmit 10^^^^^> > > > rather that way: > > > > # tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:21 handle 210: pfifo limit 10^^^^^> > therefore??? I do not understand ...Well, pfifo is a discipline at the end of class, not the class. I''m using sfq for every customer (the are limited to 256/384/512kbit), so they will be able to use the Internet even when using p2p programs. -- | pozdrawiam / greetings | powered by Trustix, Gentoo and FreeBSD | | Kajetan Staszkiewicz | jabber,email,www: vegeta()tuxpowered net | | Vegeta | IMQ devnames: http://www.tuxpowered.net | `------------------------^------------------------------------------'' _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
> Well, pfifo is a discipline at the end of class, not the class. > > I''m using sfq for every customer (the are limited to 256/384/512kbit), so they > will be able to use the Internet even when using p2p programs.But p2p programs create a lot of connection flows, so statistically SFQ will give the p2p a lot more traffic to them, compared to just several flows for "normal" trafic like http, pop3 and smtp. Or you''re doing something else too? -- damjan | дамјан This is my jabber ID --> damjan@bagra.net.mk -- not my mail address, it''s a Jabber ID --^ :)