On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Antonio Almeida wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > Antonio, could you give this patch a try (with all the previous) and
> > repeat those HFSC tests you did before (plus maybe a few tries with
> > lower rates)?
> 
> For me, HTB values are just perfect! I would say that they're better
> than HFSC, since sent rate stays below the configured ceil (but that's
> for me)
> After applying the patch you sent (to sch_hfsc.c) I got these values for HFSC:
> 
> configuration	analyser RX	error (%)
>   10000000	10062688		0,63
>   20000000	20096961		0,48
>   30000000	30135028		0,45
>   40000000	40186190		0,47
>   50000000	50294890		0,59
>   60000000	60294553		0,49
>   70000000	70284220		0,41
>   80000000	80414272		0,52
>   90000000	90354675		0,39
> 100000000	100453024		0,45
> 200000000	200962041		0,48
> 250000000	251467886		0,59
> 300000000	301422613		0,47
> 400000000	402123479		0,53
> 500000000	502356820		0,47
> 550000000	552988253		0,54
> 600000000	602956905		0,49
> 700000000	703405632		0,49
> 750000000	753949085		0,53
> 800000000	804315169		0,54
> 900000000	904584208		0,51
> 
> As usually, generating 970Mbit/s of tcp traffic of 800 bytes packets.

Very nice, it looks like HFSC precision isn't affected by these changes.
...
quoted text
> If you'd like any other values just ask. I'll be away till the fourteenth.
> Thanks a lot! Good job!

OK, I'll browse other schedulers, and if there is nothing suspicious
I'll submit these patches.

Thank you very much for cooperation!
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html