Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 15:46:36 +0100 (BST) From: Manar Hussain <manar@ivision.co.uk> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ETinc's Bandwidth limiter Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.93.970608133340.2729C-100000@stingray.ivision.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199706072008.WAA03112@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
>> There is no "fair routing" in a web farm unless everyone pays the same >> price, which is ridiculous. Charge based on their bandwidth access >> capability.. >> and with the bandwidth manager there is not accounting headaches 'cause >> they cant get more than they pay for. > >Dennis, this sounds like an overstatement. Fair does not necessarily >mean 'all equals', there can be different weights for different >users depending on how much they pay for, and the fairness is in >making everyone get what he pays for. Hard limiting the bw for >each user as you seem to suggest prevents eveyone from taking >advantage of statistical multiplexing, which, given the burstiness >of network traffic, is very rewarding for all. Exactly. There are a whole host of ways I can fairly happily limit each hosts bandwidth if I'm not bothered by these limits being "soft". The aim of the game is to be able to confidently offer a minimum level of service (which they can specify and thus pay for) but let people make more out of it if they can. Manarhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.93.970608133340.2729C-100000>