Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060412230701.GV9364>