From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Feb 23 15:32: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from fw.bby.com.au (ns.bby.com.au [192.83.119.129]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063EA112EA for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:32:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnb@itga.com.au) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by fw.bby.com.au (8.8.8/8.6.9) id KAA10506 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:32:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from lightning.itga.com.au(192.168.71.20) via SMTP by fw.bby.com.au, id smtpd010504; Tue Feb 23 23:31:55 1999 Received: from lightning (lightning [192.168.71.20]) by lightning.itga.com.au (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA09479; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:31:54 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199902232331.KAA09479@lightning.itga.com.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.1 12/23/97 From: Gregory Bond To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Software bandwidth limiting solution In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:58:17 +0100. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:31:54 +1100 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I have a situation where our link is being saturated (3+second rtt) by _incoming_ web traffic going into the squid cache. If I set up dummynet on the firewall so that all traffic to the web cache goes via a pipe with 96kB/ sec bandwidth limit (on a 128k link), will that be enough to leave some room on the pipe for the rest of the packets? I can see easily how well dummynet would work if applied to the _sending_ end of the congested link, how well does it work on the _receiving_ end? Hints, experiences, comments welcome. Greg. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message