Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:20:46 +1030 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bandwidth limiting for eMule ports Message-ID: <200401221620.46740.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200401220546.i0M5kkPf018458@apollo.backplane.com> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20040122120552.0293bd20@202.179.0.80> <200401221512.49260.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <200401220546.i0M5kkPf018458@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 22 January 2004 16:16, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Oops... sorry, I gave bad advise. I'm looking at the code. It > recognizes 'K' or 'k' so your specification was right. It's the 'b' verses > 'B' that it's sensitive to, so if you say: kbytes/sec it will think it's > kbits/sec, and if you say kBits/sec it will think it's kBytes/sec. eww :( > One thing I have noticed, however, is that the ipfw pipes seem rather > sensitive to configuration changes, especially if there are packets > already in the pipe. I've never been able to pin it down. Yeah, I found some hangs in situations like that (which I believe are fixed now) so I turn the limits on an off by adding/removing the firewall rules rather than reconfiguring the pipes. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401221620.46740.doconnor>