From owner-freebsd-net Mon Mar 8 5:13: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from IPv6.ITB.ac.id (ipv6.ITB.ac.id [167.205.22.116]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F42F14BEB for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 05:11:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jky@itb.ac.id) Received: from localhost (jky@localhost) by IPv6.ITB.ac.id (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA01542; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:11:17 +0700 (JAVT) X-Authentication-Warning: IPv6.ITB.ac.id: jky owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:11:17 +0700 (JAVT) From: Joko Y To: Kenjiro Cho Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ALTQ 1.1.3, support for FreeBSD 3.1-STABLE, started the work In-Reply-To: <199903080257.LAA21793@hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Kenjiro Cho wrote: > 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 Mr. Cho, what do you think about W2FQ? I found it in URL below: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/hzhang/ TIA, -jky- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message