Hell I''m new to Qdisc programming and I was wondering, what is the difference between using an internal Qdisc (like e.g. TBF does) vs. not using internal Qdisc (like e.g. SFQ does)? Can someone give me a quick rundown of pro and cons? with regards R.harper _________________________________________________________________ Undgå pop-ups med MSN Toolbar - http://toolbar.msn.dk hent den gratis!
Hi TBF provides traffic shaping by the Token Bucket theory, while SFQ makes sure(actually just hints) swap packets in different sessions so that no particular session will hang around for a long time. Leo R Harper wrote:> Hell > I''m new to Qdisc programming and I was wondering, what is the difference > between using an internal Qdisc (like e.g. TBF does) vs. not using > internal Qdisc (like e.g. SFQ does)? > > Can someone give me a quick rundown of pro and cons? > > with regards > R.harper > > _________________________________________________________________ > Undg pop-ups med MSN Toolbar - http://toolbar.msn.dk hent den gratis! > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list > LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc >
>TBF provides traffic shaping by the Token Bucket theory, while SFQ makes >sure(actually just hints) swap packets in different sessions so that no >particular session will hang around for a long time.Yes I know the difference between TBF and SFQ. I was trying to ask about the programming/architectural difference between creating a *internal Qdisc* for buffering (like TBF does) and then using q->qdisc->enqueue(skb, q->qdisc) etc. commands for queueing ... or just use the qdisc "provided"? __skb_enqueue(skb, skq->q) etc commands for queueing.... But thanks for your reply Regards R.Harper>R Harper wrote: > > Hell > > I''m new to Qdisc programming and I was wondering, what is the difference > > between using an internal Qdisc (like e.g. TBF does) vs. not using > > internal Qdisc (like e.g. SFQ does)? > > > > Can someone give me a quick rundown of pro and cons? > > > > with regards > > R.harper > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Undg pop-ups med MSN Toolbar - http://toolbar.msn.dk hent den gratis! > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LARTC mailing list > > LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc > >_________________________________________________________________ F alle de nye og sjove ikoner med MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.dk/
R Harper wrote:>> TBF provides traffic shaping by the Token Bucket theory, while SFQ makes >> sure(actually just hints) swap packets in different sessions so that no >> particular session will hang around for a long time. > > > Yes I know the difference between TBF and SFQ. > > I was trying to ask about the programming/architectural difference > between creating a *internal Qdisc* for buffering (like TBF does) and > then using > q->qdisc->enqueue(skb, q->qdisc) etc. commands for queueing ... > > or just use the qdisc "provided"? > __skb_enqueue(skb, skq->q) etc commands for queueing....Internal qdiscs don''t show up in dev->qdisc_list and thus are invisible to ip qdisc show. They''re usually used as place-holder leaf qdiscs until the user configures a different one. SFQ doesn''t use them to fit all internal queues in one page. Regards Patrick