Skip to content

fix spelling in shaper_bufferbloat #718

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 7, 2025
Merged

fix spelling in shaper_bufferbloat #718

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1a1f9d7
fix spelling in shaper_bufferbloat
rostbel May 7, 2025
0abbec3
Update source/manual/how-tos/shaper_bufferbloat.rst
fichtner May 7, 2025
4faf074
Update source/manual/how-tos/shaper_bufferbloat.rst
fichtner May 7, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion source/manual/how-tos/shaper_bufferbloat.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ Interval is used to ensure that the measured minimum delay does not become too s

limit
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Default limit size of 10240 packets is to much. The creators recommended value 1000 for sub 10 Gbit/s connections. The default limit will never reached for sub 10 Gbit/s WAN connections. Before that could happen FQ_CoDel would already take action. So it's healthy to reduce limit.
Default limit size of 10240 packets is too much. The creators recommended value 1000 for sub 10 Gbit/s connections. The default limit will never be reached for sub 10 Gbit/s WAN connections. Before that could happen FQ_CoDel would already take action. So it is healthy to reduce the limit.

The over-large packet limit leads to bad results during slow start on some benchmarks. Reducing it too low could impact new flow start.

Expand Down