Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:13:54 +0200 (CEST) From: "Max Laier" <max.laier@tm.uka.de> To: "Erik Osterholm" <freebsd-lists-erik@erikosterholm.org>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why isn't ALTQ in GENERIC? Message-ID: <4c5bca29cfc1cdd3efa81ffb2f815675.squirrel@router> In-Reply-To: <20080624212639.GA41755@aleph.cepheid.org> References: <20080624212639.GA41755@aleph.cepheid.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Erik, Am Di, 24.06.2008, 23:26, schrieb Erik Osterholm: > Can anyone tell me if there are good reasons for explicitly leaving > ALTQ out of the kernel? More specific to my circumstances, if I'm > building kernels to be installed on every machine we deploy, is it > worth building a separate kernel for ALTQ for those few boxes which > will require it? > > Are there performance issues? Stability issues? Ultimately, I'm just > surprised that it's not available in GENERIC if there isn't a good > reason, but I can't find any documentation for that reason. Short answer: Historical reasons. Whole stroy: When ALTQ was added there were both performance and stability concerns. For a long time we had a big #ifdef ALTQ in if_var.h to avoid one additional check for if_queue enqueue opperations. These are now gone and I personally don't see any issues that would prevent ALTQ from being in GENERIC. However, it's unclear which disceplines to turn on by default. I'd like to see ALTQ in GERNERIC, but I've been reluctant to make the change on my own. If we can get a quorum here, I'll reconsider it. > If you can answer the same question for IPSEC, that would be nice, > too! Size? -- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4c5bca29cfc1cdd3efa81ffb2f815675.squirrel>