From owner-freebsd-net Thu Nov 23 11: 4:29 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail.interware.hu (mail.interware.hu [195.70.32.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD44837B4C5 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from pretoria-31.budapest.interware.hu ([195.70.53.95] helo=elischer.org) by mail.interware.hu with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian)) id 13z1fQ-0004Gn-00; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:04:21 +0100 Message-ID: <3A1D1567.7D4A6F87@elischer.org> Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 05:02:32 -0800 From: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386) X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Pilosov Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ALTQ as standard..... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Alex Pilosov wrote: > > Julian, > > Can you take a look at the code http://www.riss-telecom.ru/~vitaly/ > thanks for the pointer... I'll examine it in more depth later, (I looke at it some time ago) I was not specifically looking for ALTQ traffic controlling, but the ALTQ ability to have 'pluggable queue types' > Its already based on netgraph, and it can do [almost] everything that ALTQ > does. The only thing it lacks compared to altq is a large selection of > queuing disciplines. It is also much faster than altq. > > bwman also has support for lower and upper bound of bandwidth, unlike > ALTQ. > I will get back to you later about these modules.... > -alex > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > I'd like to put to the networking list that we take a serious look > > at making the ALTQ code from Kenjiro Cho a standard part of FreeBSD. > > > > I'm looking at adding some queueing methods into Netgraph > > as part of some work being discussed by > > phk, Archie, Brian and myself, Looking into this I note that > > for the to be really effective we really want to have an > > overall queueing strategy for the OS. We have at the moment, > > the simplistic IFQ_ macro's, but I think that they have lived > > long enough and done their duty. > > I'd like to replace them (or at least supplement them) > > in a way that allows us to have more comprehensive queue > > support. If done correctly, (e.g the correct macro's > > are added,) I think we can keep the performance degradation > > to a minimum. > > > > MY main reason right NOW is that in some cases, Netgraph > > interfaces to exisiting code using the exisiting queues, and > > if I want to add such things as queue priorities, I can't > > do this unless the exisiting code also upgrades. > > (e.g. the netgraph ethernet hooks deliver packets into the > > same queue that the normal interface methods do.) > > > > Julian > > > > > > \ -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ julian@elischer.org ( OZ ) World tour 2000 ---> X_.---._/ presently in: Budapest v To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message