From owner-freebsd-isp  Fri Feb 12 13:06:01 1999
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06124
          for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:06:01 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from super-g.inch.com (super-g.com [207.240.140.161])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA06100
          for <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:05:58 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from spork@super-g.com)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by super-g.inch.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA01707;
	Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:04:57 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:04:56 -0500 (EST)
From: spork <spork@super-g.com>
X-Sender: spork@super-g.inch.com
To: Deepwell Internet <freebsd@deepwell.com>
cc: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Bandwidth limiting/trafic shaping
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990211125823.00b7c340@mail1.dcomm.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.00.9902121602530.5369-100000@super-g.inch.com>
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:

> 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.  

Which solution are you using?  This sounds incredibly cool.

And also, a more general question, can anyone summarize which things do
what?  There are so damn many things and no good "bandwidth limiting FAQ".

I like the "bursting" mechanism.  Everything I've played with so far was
very simple.  Each machine got 'x' amount of bandwidth, even if there was
plenty more available...

Thanks,

Charles

> 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.
> 
> 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. :-)
> >
> >Dennis
> >
> >
> >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> >with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
> 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message