Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:04:56 -0500 (EST) From: spork <spork@super-g.com> To: Deepwell Internet <freebsd@deepwell.com> Cc: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bandwidth limiting/trafic shaping Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.00.9902121602530.5369-100000@super-g.inch.com> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990211125823.00b7c340@mail1.dcomm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Deepwell Internet wrote: > Kernel throttling will never give you the relational shaping that > class-based-queueing gives. We have quite a few machines under a > class-based queueing machine and have it tweaked quite well. With class > based queueing you can define "classes" of computers and define which > machines have priority over others. Which solution are you using? This sounds incredibly cool. And also, a more general question, can anyone summarize which things do what? There are so damn many things and no good "bandwidth limiting FAQ". I like the "bursting" mechanism. Everything I've played with so far was very simple. Each machine got 'x' amount of bandwidth, even if there was plenty more available... Thanks, Charles > You can also give people "guaranteed > information rates" and let them burst above into any unused space. We also > have ICMP shaped into a seperate class. Most of these can't be > accomplished with kernel throttling. > > Thanks! > Terry Ewing > > > At 02:47 PM 2/11/99 -0500, you wrote: > >At 09:38 AM 2/11/99 +0200, you wrote: > >>Hello everybody! > >> > >>Can someone comment about comparison of bandwidth limiting software like > >>dummynet or bwmgr from ET inc. and alternative queuing schemes like ALQ > >>with Class Based Queuing (CBQ)? All seem to provide similar effects but > >>which is preferable in what situation? > >> > >>If I'll get enough feedback I'll post summary. > > > >There are a lot of fancy names out there, but there is no evidence that the > >fanciest ones work any better. Ours is a physical limiter, kernel based with > >no additional interrupt overhead and can handle just about any level of > >traffic > >that the machine can handle without it. Our new HTML interface makes it > >easy to manage also. > > > >Others are free and may work just fine for you as well. :-) > > > >Dennis > > > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > >with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.00.9902121602530.5369-100000>