Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:07:01 -0700 From: Bill Fumerola <billf@FreeBSD.org> To: AT Matik <asstec@matik.com.br> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Load-balancing Message-ID: <20060412230701.GV9364@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <200604121942.25737.asstec@matik.com.br> References: <20060411092932.42148fd8@giboia> <20060412214619.GT9364@elvis.mu.org> <443D7B71.5070004@freebsdbrasil.com.br> <200604121942.25737.asstec@matik.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 07:42:25PM -0300, AT Matik wrote: > On Wednesday 12 April 2006 19:13, Patrick Tracanelli wrote: > > Also, what about some sort of algorith more similar to "plr" for "prob" > > action? As my understanding prob is really a probability, which does not > > mean say 33% of the packets will match (while plr says it will match - > > and drop the packet), it means 33% of probability, right? This would be > > different of 33% of matching rate. Lets think of a "rate" option for > > "matching rate", a > > > > "probably" not a good choice to generate packet-loss when trying kind of load > balance > > prob generates random rate (fwd in this case) > plr generates random packet _loss_ rate > > I think the latter option create artificial kind of bw limit yes the two share only a math equation. even if they behaved the same (match v. drop), the two wouldn't be equivalent because you get all of dummynet's queueing/dropping characteristics. -- bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060412230701.GV9364>