Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:11:17 +0700 (JAVT) From: Joko Y <jky@itb.ac.id> To: Kenjiro Cho <kjc@csl.sony.co.jp> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ALTQ 1.1.3, support for FreeBSD 3.1-STABLE, started the work Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.01.9903082007570.1513-100000@IPv6.ITB.ac.id> In-Reply-To: <199903080257.LAA21793@hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Kenjiro Cho wrote: > I believe that CBQ provides much better control over WFQ since WFQ is > not capable of controlling the peak rate of a flow. > See the following report by George Uhl at NASA. > http://corn.eos.nasa.gov/qos/qos_results_summary_july98.html Mr. Cho, what do you think about W2FQ? I found it in URL below: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/hzhang/ TIA, -jky- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.01.9903082007570.1513-100000>