Subject: re: more on NFS over TCP and priorities

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:05:14 -0500 (EST)

> Though a scheme that prioritizes packets according to their
> size seems eminently fair.  That's essentially what you have
> with multiple connections: even though the bandwidth is shared
> and finite, shorter packets can slip by the longer ones, simply
> because long packets take longer to transmit.

Agreed. But there is a difference between "can slip by" and "always goes
first". If you have two TCP streams and don't give an absolute
priority to one over the other, I think it should be ok. (The classic
priority queue strategy says the higher priority job/packet/... always goes
first, and I thought that's what was being considered originally.)

Have fun with it, rick

---

From: "Talpey, Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:26:40 -0500

Isn't this all just a QOS discussion? I'd think there is plenty
to leverage without resorting to packet shaping in NFSv4?

Tom.