From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 25 01:28:46 2008 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 877BD1065671 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:28:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=UD3h=XH=tm.uka.de=max.laier@srs.kundenserver.de) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E2F8FC1E for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:28:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=UD3h=XH=tm.uka.de=max.laier@srs.kundenserver.de) Received: from vampire.homelinux.org (dslb-088-064-178-179.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.64.178.179]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKwh2-1KBJcI0o0l-0004JP; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:16:10 +0200 Received: (qmail 2951 invoked by uid 80); 25 Jun 2008 01:13:54 -0000 Received: from 2001:6f8:12c8:1:31b7:808e:a19e:8e6e (SquirrelMail authenticated user mlaier) by router with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:13:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4c5bca29cfc1cdd3efa81ffb2f815675.squirrel@router> In-Reply-To: <20080624212639.GA41755@aleph.cepheid.org> References: <20080624212639.GA41755@aleph.cepheid.org> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:13:54 +0200 (CEST) From: "Max Laier" To: "Erik Osterholm" , freebsd-net@freebsd.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19zBsVozVcFl8auT/5Lu3k6R4K2kEWRZF10SMR JlsNKNHzX/YRl3Yw9QJOsIsLdhoD7OUsoXPpvUVTcauSuyWYtl 96y1V+6rcpHTFd2Sn0emw== Cc: Subject: Re: Why isn't ALTQ in GENERIC? 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: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:28:46 -0000 Hi Erik, Am Di, 24.06.2008, 23:26, schrieb Erik Osterholm: > Can anyone tell me if there are good reasons for explicitly leaving > ALTQ out of the kernel? More specific to my circumstances, if I'm > building kernels to be installed on every machine we deploy, is it > worth building a separate kernel for ALTQ for those few boxes which > will require it? > > Are there performance issues? Stability issues? Ultimately, I'm just > surprised that it's not available in GENERIC if there isn't a good > reason, but I can't find any documentation for that reason. Short answer: Historical reasons. Whole stroy: When ALTQ was added there were both performance and stability concerns. For a long time we had a big #ifdef ALTQ in if_var.h to avoid one additional check for if_queue enqueue opperations. These are now gone and I personally don't see any issues that would prevent ALTQ from being in GENERIC. However, it's unclear which disceplines to turn on by default. I'd like to see ALTQ in GERNERIC, but I've been reluctant to make the change on my own. If we can get a quorum here, I'll reconsider it. > If you can answer the same question for IPSEC, that would be nice, > too! Size? -- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News