Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:25:28 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Vincent Poy <vince@oahu.wurldlink.net> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latency problem with traffic shaping (ipfw/dummynet) Message-ID: <20040321002527.A20048@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20040320124422.W8264-100000@oahu.WURLDLINK.NET>; from vince@oahu.wurldlink.net on Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:56:08PM -1000 References: <20040320141922.B7314@xorpc.icir.org> <20040320124422.W8264-100000@oahu.WURLDLINK.NET>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:56:08PM -1000, Vincent Poy wrote: ... > > the above configuration means that if queue 1 is getting a bandwidth > > X, then queue 2 will get 0.99X, queue 3 will get 0.98X, queue > > 4 will get 0.97X. Hardly matching any reasonable definition of high-mid-low > > priority! > > Hmm, I think I did it that way because 100 is the largest number > and I didn't decide on how many queues I may add later so the numbers will > change but does the weight number really mean 99%, 98%, 97% priority? So > should it really be 66, 33, and 1? no, the weights mean exactly what i wrote above, and they are weights not priorities. As to the values to use, that's entirely up to you. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040321002527.A20048>