|
|
Re: [PATCH] netem: fix rate extension and drop accounting |
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 18:51 +0200, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote: > OK, I will work on it tomorrow! But Eric, keep in mind that this accumulative > behavior is intended: think about a hypothetical satellite link with a > bandwidth (rate) of 1000 byte/s. If you send three 1000 byte consecutively > packets. The first packet is delayed for 1 second, the second then is > transmitted after 2 seconds, the third after three seconds and so on. So > _this_ accumulative behavior is correct. Anyway, I will look at this tomorrow! > I fear you did your tests with no delay on netem. Try to setup a rate of 100kbit and a delay of 100ms and to really get full bandwith (100kbit), I am afraid it doesnt work. Your algo is OK only if no packets are in queue (obviously) But if you have 2 or 3 packets, the delay are cumulative, but the delay should be a fixed bias for each packet. > Thanks Eric! > > PS: one last question: what do you want to test? TBF and netem rate at the > same time looks, mmhh, special ... ;-) I ask myself what link exhibit this > characteristic? TBF as a netem child was the usual way to have delay + rate before your patch ? Not sure why you find it special ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Linux Kernel Discussion] [Ethernet Bridging] [Linux Wireless Networking] [Linux Bluetooth Networking] [Linux Networking Users] [VLAN] [Git] [IETF Annouce] [Linux Assembly] [Security] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Singles Social Networking] [Yosemite Information] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux Kernel] [ARM Linux] [Linux Virtualization] [Linux Security] [Linux IDE] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Free Dating]
![]() |
![]() |