Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:44:49 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Freebsd-Questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: using Dummynet to rate limit ftp Message-ID: <3E4F2551.30704@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20030216002736.GA73692@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophi> References: <AGEHIFHGNEMPFNCPLONMEEPKEDAA.paul@compwest.com.au> <20030215104024.GB68671@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophi> <3E4E8CDC.1090404@mac.com> <20030216002736.GA73692@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Seaman wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:54:20PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote: [ ... ] > The question of QoS rather than bandwidth capping is valid, but how do > you prioritise data traffic if you can't identify at least one of the > port numbers used for the TCP or UDP streams? While you need to identify traffic somehow in order to apply QoS, I don't see why you have to identify traffic by port alone. Set up different priorities for other hosts versus this FTP server's IP; or match other traffic types first and leave the generic "high ports" to "high ports" for the lowest priority. [ I'm still at the tinkering stage of using bandwidth shaping myself, but bandwidth limits are appropriate when you pay by the byte or have usage limits in place. QoS is better (more useful?) when you've got unlimited connectivity, or busy pipes, or both. ] -Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E4F2551.30704>