Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
There are only so many queues that you can created in QoS; therefore, not all applications can be prioritized.
Actually if your try to prioritize all applications, effectively there's no prioritization.
As to number of queues, some platforms can support quite a few flow queues, but even when that's not possible you can obtain much benefit from 2 to 4 queues, if you use them intelligently and if there's sufficient bandwidth for the traffic that needs a certain amount of bandwidth. Some traffic (by design) will try to use all available bandwidth even when less bandwidth would satisfy the application. It's this kind of traffic, mixed with traffic that has stringent bandwidth requirements, where QoS can make a huge difference.
I want to hear your opinions about having all servers and storage at one location while half of your users sit at another location connected with a 100Mbps.
Might be perfectly fine or totally horrible; lots of variables. Even when you have lots of available bandwidth, end-to-end latency can be very detimental to "performance" of some applications.
