From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Sep 11 08:05:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA11135 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:05:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA11118 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:04:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it) Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id PAA19937; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:11:21 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199809111311.PAA19937@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: Packet/traffic shapper ? To: oppermann@pipeline.ch (Andre Oppermann) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:11:21 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: dennis@etinc.com, mike@smith.net.au, ulf@Alameda.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <35F92CE3.BC7AF153@pipeline.ch> from "Andre Oppermann" at Sep 11, 98 03:59:44 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > I suppose that you mean "the 2 best free solutions"? > > No, until you give me more technically detailed description of your > BW manager product. well still it is not a free solution so the comment is correct :) >From what i have read about the Etinc product (and i'll be happy to be corrected), it does something very similar to the bandwidth-management part of dummynet, plus comes with support being commercial software. > What I look for is an alternative for the standard FIFO queueing > currently done in the BSD IP stack. You might know that bandwidth > is quite expensive here in Europe and I'd like to drive my links > up to 90% utilization. That is only possible if I have something > like RED that does fair queueing on the FreeBSD routers, otherwise ALTQ might be for you then. In fact RED+WFQ would be not hard to port to dummynet (and it is in my todo list but not at the top), and the bw limiting of dummynet could be ported even more easily to ALTQ, but there is one little difference between ALTQ and dummynet: * ALTQ replaces the queueing management at the interface level, so it has more feedback from the interface, at the price of having to modify/recompile each driver. * dummynet works at a higher level so the bandwidth is configured "statically" and you can have queueing underneath. The advantage is that you don't have to recompile the drivers, dummynet works even on a ppp link. I have to say that if your machine is not directly on the bottleneck link, or such link has constant bandwidth (e.g. does not use compression etc.) then the difference is irrelevant apart from long term drifts (but you can easily correct them). It remains as a fact that, as it is now, ALTQ implements WFQ and RED, whereas dummynet does not. cheers luigi -----------------------------+-------------------------------------- Luigi Rizzo | Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it | Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 | via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 | http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ _____________________________|______________________________________ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message