[LARTC] new perflow rate control queue

[Andy Furniss]

Wang Jian wrote:
> Hi Andy Furniss,
> 
> I just tried HTB+SFQ. I replace 'perflow ...' in t.sh with 'sfq'.
> 
> The test result is very bad. The speed is not stable, and speed
> variation is too large when considering fairness.
> 
> The HTB is rate=80kbps,ceil=80kbps. I use 7 streams to test. Streams's
> speed vary from 3.4kbps to 28.7kbps. The test last about 10 minutes, and
> the speeds don't like to converge.
> 
> Maybe the fairness is achived in long run, but it hurts applications
> that need bandwidth guarantee.

Yes - I can make sfq look bad in tests, if the only difference is dst 
port then it just doesn't work and if the ip addresses are sequential 
it's not too good. In practice I use esfq as you can use more hash 
buckets - but perturb is horrable for the packet reordering.

I think perflow is going to be far better for me - just that having low 
bandwidth means I would never send interactive to sfq anyway and only 
use it for bulk whose rate is controlled by htb per user and is quite 
variable - so for me just letting htb do rate would be fine.

Andy.