Suggestion: sort the queues by priority

  • Hello,

    I was using the traffic shapper, and something that would really help, would be to sort queues by priority.

    There are mainly two screen where that should be nice:

    • Firewall > Traffic shaper
    • Status > Traffic Shapping > Queue

    It would help having a quick glance at the traffic shaper. Instead, I need to write down queues with priorities on paper, and to do that, I need to open each queue one by one to get the priority. So from my point of vue, that would be great great great…

    What do you think?

    Thanks in advance

  • I don't mean to say your idea is bad, just that it may be a long time before anyone finds it important enough to work on.

    Why not use descriptive names?

  • If I submit a pull request, does it have any chance to be accepted?

  • I'm not sure the proper procedure, but you may want to file a feature/bug first.

  • I was pretty entrenched in queues for a few months and I never wished for the queues to be listed by priority.

    I mostly played with HFSC though. HFSC does not have simplistic priorities but instead has parameters to set the worst-case, per-packet transmission delay and average bandwidth of individual flows passing through the queue. HFSC is much more predictable and mathematically guarantees that if a flow passes admission control then the flow will get the prescribed bandwidth/latency. (I didn't test the admission control directly, but it really just means, if the packet is accepted and not dropped, then it has enough unused bandwidth to give that packet the preconfigured bandwidht/latency)

    How would it help you to have them listed by priority?
    I think only PRIQ and maybe FAIRQ could be reordered for aesthetic purposes. CBQ and HFSC can do multi-level hierarchies which could not be displayed accurately in any order but the configured order.

  • Yes, I started using that queueing system (please help me God)… and priorities are not relevant anymore...

    Thanks for your explanations...

Log in to reply