Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401221620.46740.doconnor>