Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 11:57:40 +0900 From: Kenjiro Cho <kjc@csl.sony.co.jp> To: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> Cc: julian@whistle.com, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ALTQ 1.1.3, support for FreeBSD 3.1-STABLE, started the work Message-ID: <199903080257.LAA21793@hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 07 Mar 1999 14:26:18 %2B0100." <19990307142618.A4807@titan.klemm.gtn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andreas, >> I started to port your ALTQ 1.1.3 patches for FreeBSD 3.0 >> to FreeBSD-3.1. The ALTQ patch for FreeBSD-3.1-RELEASE is already available from http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/person/kjc/software.html >> BTW, just curious, did you or somebody else play with WFQ ? >> The authors say in the docu, WFQ isn't well maintained and >> is missing hashing ... Do you thing using ALTQ brings advantages >> like Cisco's implementation does ? All I want is, to get better >> telnet / ssh performance over a 64 KBit ISDN line if UUCP/ftp >> sessions saturate the link. 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 --Kenjiro 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?199903080257.LAA21793>