From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 5 09:56:02 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E086106566B for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:56:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@kuzbass.ru) Received: from www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (www.svzserv.kemerovo.su [213.184.65.80]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7428FC14 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:56:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (eugen@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n959u07e073805; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:56:00 +0800 (KRAST) (envelope-from eugen@www.svzserv.kemerovo.su) Received: (from eugen@localhost) by www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n959u0EE073804; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:56:00 +0800 (KRAST) (envelope-from eugen) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:56:00 +0800 From: Eugene Grosbein To: rihad Message-ID: <20091005095600.GA73335@svzserv.kemerovo.su> References: <4AC8A76B.3050502@mail.ru> <20091005025521.GA52702@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <20091005061025.GB55845@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <4AC9B400.9020400@mail.ru> <20091005090102.GA70430@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <4AC9BC5A.50902@mail.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AC9BC5A.50902@mail.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dummynet dropping too many packets X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:56:02 -0000 On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 02:28:58PM +0500, rihad wrote: > Oh, I almost forgot... Right now I've googled up and am reading this > intro: http://www-rp.lip6.fr/~sf/WebSF/PapersWeb/iscc01.ps > > So turning to GRED would turn my FreeBSD router from dumb into a smart > router that knows TCP? I thought pushing bits around at a lower level, > and a sufficient queue size were enough. No, it will still deal with IP packets but more clever. > Still not sure why increasing queue size as high as I want doesn't > completely eliminate drops. The goal is to make sources of traffic to slow down, this is the only way to descrease drops - any finite queue may be overhelmed with traffic. Taildrop does not really help with this. GRED does much better. Eugene Grosbein