Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 15:46:36 +0100 (BST) From: Manar Hussain <manar@ivision.co.uk> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ETinc's Bandwidth limiter Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.93.970608133340.2729C-100000@stingray.ivision.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199706072008.WAA03112@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> There is no "fair routing" in a web farm unless everyone pays the same >> price, which is ridiculous. Charge based on their bandwidth access >> capability.. >> and with the bandwidth manager there is not accounting headaches 'cause >> they cant get more than they pay for. > >Dennis, this sounds like an overstatement. Fair does not necessarily >mean 'all equals', there can be different weights for different >users depending on how much they pay for, and the fairness is in >making everyone get what he pays for. Hard limiting the bw for >each user as you seem to suggest prevents eveyone from taking >advantage of statistical multiplexing, which, given the burstiness >of network traffic, is very rewarding for all. Exactly. There are a whole host of ways I can fairly happily limit each hosts bandwidth if I'm not bothered by these limits being "soft". The aim of the game is to be able to confidently offer a minimum level of service (which they can specify and thus pay for) but let people make more out of it if they can. Manar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.93.970608133340.2729C-100000>