From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Feb 11 16:33:42 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA14260 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:33:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA14241 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:33:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA02600; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:24:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from current1.whistle.com(207.76.205.22) via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpdFB2593; Fri Feb 12 00:24:39 1999 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:24:35 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Deepwell Internet cc: Dennis , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bandwidth limiting/trafic shaping In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990211125823.00b7c340@mail1.dcomm.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Deepwell Internet wrote: > Although kernel throttling is a good solution, I disagree with your > thoughts that any of the "fancier" shaping mechanisms give you no > additional features. > > 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. 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. Who says that kernel throttling can't be class based? (e.g. CBQ/ALTQ) Of course Dennis says "Physical limiter", which could be a number of things. He is however motivated by the ultimate motivator (food on the table) to make sure it works well. julian > > 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. :-) > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message