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
You're correct, WRR and WFQ are much alike, and both have a principle feature not to starve any one queue. Perhaps the biggest difference between them, WRR is generally implemented on some Cisco switches and is very limited to the number of egress queues it supports while WFQ is implemented on routers and generally supports many more egress queues. WFQ also often supports a dynamic number of flow queues.
There are subtle differences in how the two actually share bandwidth, as there are, on switches, between WRR, DWRR, and SRR.
