> On May 28, 2015 at 1:49 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:31 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
>
> > The overall product does but the video source feeds come over a different
> > network via UDP. There are, however, RTMP quality control feeds coming
> > across
> >
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:31 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> The overall product does but the video source feeds come over a different
> network via UDP. There are, however, RTMP quality control feeds coming across
> this connection. There may also occasionally be test UDP source fee
> On May 28, 2015 at 1:17 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:33 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
>
> > Our initial testing has been single flow but the ultimate purpose is
> > processing
> > real time video in a complex application which ingests associated meta data,
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:33 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> Our initial testing has been single flow but the ultimate purpose is
> processing
> real time video in a complex application which ingests associated meta data,
> post to consumer facing cloud, does reporting back - so lots
> On May 28, 2015 at 12:26 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 08:45 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > If your experimenting one thing you could do is create many
> > ifb devices and load balance across them from tc. I'm not
> > sure if this would be practical in your setup or not b
> On May 28, 2015 at 11:45 AM John Fastabend wrote:
>
>
> On 05/28/2015 08:30 AM, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> >
> >> On May 28, 2015 at 11:14 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:38 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> IFB has still a lo
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 08:45 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> If your experimenting one thing you could do is create many
> ifb devices and load balance across them from tc. I'm not
> sure if this would be practical in your setup or not but might
> be worth trying.
>
> One thing I've been debating a
On 05/28/2015 08:30 AM, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
On May 28, 2015 at 11:14 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:38 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
IFB has still a long way before being efficient.
In the mean time, you could play with following patch, an
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 11:30 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> Interesting but this is destined to become a critical production system for a
> high profile, internationally recognized product so I am hesitant to patch. I
> doubt I can convince my company to do it but is improving IFB t
> On May 28, 2015 at 11:14 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:38 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
>
> IFB has still a long way before being efficient.
>
> In the mean time, you could play with following patch, and
> setup /sys/class/net/eth0/gro_timeout to 2
>
>
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:38 -0400, jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
> This has been an interesting exercise - thank you for your help along the way,
> Eric. IFB did not seem to bottleneck in our initial testing but there was
> really only one flow of traffic during the test at around 1 Gbps.
> On May 25, 2015 at 6:31 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 16:05 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > Hello, all. One one of our connections we are doing intensive traffic
> > shaping with tc. We are using ifb interfaces for shaping ingress
> > traffic and we also use ifb inte
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 22:52 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> Hmm . . . I've been thinking about that SFQ leaf qdisc. I see that
> newer kernels allow a much higher "limit" than 127 but it still seems
> that the queue depth limit for any one flow is still 127. When we do
> something like GRE/
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 15:31 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 16:05 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > Hello, all. One one of our connections we are doing intensive traffic
> > shaping with tc. We are using ifb interfaces for shaping ingress
> > traffic and we also use ifb in
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 16:05 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> Hello, all. One one of our connections we are doing intensive traffic
> shaping with tc. We are using ifb interfaces for shaping ingress
> traffic and we also use ifb interfaces for egress so that we can apply
> the same set of rule
15 matches
Mail list logo
