LARTC - Aug 2004 - Some questions about hfsc

I have been looking at the hfsc for some time as a replacement or at a
class that can be used like htb.  But I seem to have run into a problem.
With htb classes it is easy to make three or more levels of priority for a
connection.  All you need to do is to make classes and give them different
prio levels.  But it seems like you can only define a real-time bandwidth
and a link sharing bandwidth.  This seems like only 2 levels of priority.
Did I miss something?

				josh
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Hello

W liście z wto, 24-08-2004, godz. 00:33, Joshua Snyder pisze:
> I have been looking at the hfsc for some time as a replacement or at a
> class that can be used like htb.  But I seem to have run into a problem.
> With htb classes it is easy to make three or more levels of priority for a
> connection.  All you need to do is to make classes and give them different
> prio levels.  But it seems like you can only define a real-time bandwidth
> and a link sharing bandwidth.  This seems like only 2 levels of priority.
> Did I miss something?
> 
> 				josh
If you want hierarchic structure you can try putting sub-qdiscs in
classes you want to have lower priority. The ''rt'' service
curves in that
qdiscs'' classes would dequeue not to root class  but to classes they
are
attached to.

I wonder what are the disadventages of such solution.

-- 
Krzysztof Matusik <kyf@arterm.pl>

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/