Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 6 Mar 2009 06:22:26 +1100 (EST)
From:      Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
To:        Sebastian Mellmann <sebastian.mellmann@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>
Cc:        freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ipfw (dummynet) adds delay, but not configured to do so
Message-ID:  <20090306060318.O71460@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
In-Reply-To: <49B020D8.8070502@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>
References:  <49AED3B1.1060209@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>    <20090305124242.P71460@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <36832.62.206.221.107.1236237708.squirrel@anubis.getmyip.com> <20090306033309.J71460@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <49B020D8.8070502@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Sebastian Mellmann wrote:

 > > Paired pipes will speed things up.  Maybe not noticeably for pings (call 
 > > and response work half-duplex) but for esp TCP it could be considerable.
 > 
 > How does this "pairing" of pipes work?
 > Couldn't find any documentation about it?

Perhaps 'paired' isn't the best term for it, but see the ipfw(8) 
'TRAFFIC SHAPING' section for the rationale and relevant examples.

 > Actually I'm using 'in recv' and 'out xmit', but it wasn't applied in
 > this example, but thanks for the hint again (you already mentioned that
 > on the freebsd-question mailing list I think ;-)).

Sorry :)

 > For now we will stick to the delay "issue" and see how it affects our
 > results.

Much more scientific than changing everything at once ..

cheers, Ian



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090306060318.O71460>