.jpg "Opportunities, Appliacation, Openings"){kind=small}
.jpg "Hand Job, Blow Job, Job Search, Monster Job"){kind=small}
.jpg "pusat resume, daftar kerja, cari kerja"){kind=small}
.jpg "Project Manager, SOftware Engineer, SAP Consultant"){kind=small}
hierarchical shaping versus shaping in conjunction to cbwfq
Yes I agree. —– Original Message —– From: Petr Lapukhov To: Chris Lewis Cc: Pierre-Alex ; ccielab@groupstudy.com Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 11:03 AM Subject: Re: hierarchical shaping versus shaping in conjunction to cbwfq
But then, speaking a little theoretical (putting aside all that L2 overhead and stuff:)
if we have sum of shapers rate _equal_ to interface physical rate, congestion will never occur at interface level. So there is no difference (theoretically) if we have FIFO of CBWFQ at interface level - they will never be engaged.
So maybe setting “bandwith” with “shape” still does matter only in case of oversubscription…
Petr
