From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 7 15:02:17 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5691065670 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:02:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f211.google.com (mail-ew0-f211.google.com [209.85.219.211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8388FC19 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:02:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy3 with SMTP id 3so2780062ewy.13 for ; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:02:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9+fd9nkbWTSQrZttliQGfbXx4z24z8mhqos1+FRH1h4=; b=OS7axYOdHK4xdMR8h6c7Ir55yCcYVTkYo5yxlxwBbfjAuuQPHbrYq9T6nQcqkyUEKH dIjOoWZod3d6E0nbjgTn7pXYVNJvKEn3IW6/cK8+EMvDJYjkXMO1gDi8Q39fsDyFwCpy Uexy6QvvOEehQPZ5L5i9+WOrA6YqPjbICp+40= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bvIYsaJWo6mURV3k0Uw8/8rXxbM15zPboTlHxhdZFcFjFRyYGqX2AFDXnVm9y3pKVr KRyGU2W+AxmlrwWgnRj2OQXgN8sIW3S8wGQQ92EL9c3p2HJqzVaWTEi1FuPCtc+768/r fqguNZH+iHTIS3p/npHfnM0Cobi9WKyOKS7v4= Received: by 10.216.87.143 with SMTP id y15mr1741606wee.39.1265554936017; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:02:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (bb-87-81-140-128.ukonline.co.uk [87.81.140.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t2sm8539004gve.24.2010.02.07.07.02.14 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:02:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:02:12 +0000 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100207150212.4e94824c@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <4B6E8D18.7000609@pp.dyndns.biz> References: <4B6DE9D5.8050301@pp.dyndns.biz> <20100207045756.5148b4a0@gumby.homeunix.com> <4B6E8D18.7000609@pp.dyndns.biz> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.4 (GTK+ 2.18.6; i386-portbld-freebsd8.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: how to control upload data in bittorrent clients X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:02:17 -0000 On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:51:20 +0100 Morgan Wesstr=F6m wrote: > RW wrote: > > On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:14:45 +0100 > > Morgan Wesstr=F6m wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > >>> 1) in the transmission web it showing downloading is 10 kbps > >>> to 30 kbps but uploading it shows 50 to 92 kbps my question > >>> is is it possible to limit the uploading data rate , how can I > >>> do this ? > >=20 > >> Check out Daniel Hartmeier's excellent article on how to prioritize > >> TCP ACKs (and other traffic). It will explain what you experience > >> and solve the problem for you. > >=20 > > It's a good idea to handle this from within transmission too. > > Rate limiting works best at the TCP level. >=20 > Well, the thing is that if you prioritize your TCP ACKs you won't have > to do any rate limiting within transmission. You can then use your > full upload and download simultaneously. Don't you want to use the > bandwidth you pay for? :-) You can't get the full bandwidth because you need to set the upload limit at a level that can be sustained upstream in your router or modem; otherwise it doesn't work properly. You can't just use your nominal line-speed or let altq pick-up the interface speed. It depends what you are trying achieve. If your sole object is to prevent ack delays reducing tcp download speed then altq will do it. However, if you want to seed afterwards you need to reduce the impact on latency-sensitive protocols like http and imap. Further traffic prioritization does help, but I find that I get better results if I also set the client to limit itself a bit below the altq limit. In my experience tcp limiting also produces steadier uploads than altq so the average rate can actually be higher. On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:21:33 +0000 dhaneshk k wrote: > how can we control it within transmission ? Can you shed some light > in this solution=20 preferences --> speed