From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 21 16:15:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A9C16A422 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:15:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from donaldbaud@yahoo.com) Received: from web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.87.58]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 73BC743D55 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:15:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from donaldbaud@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 91176 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Feb 2006 16:15:37 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=d0LJc5Lurz+ph59U7ovb5+bWF42Nmp/rhmm32cLODULGr0oMPqvDcJp1ZJjAwTkfgXL4oQy1EXNz9iZgmKiyOe8LZ9ZDoQu9HDOnKUOLJlNTm4MMwLe0by07UKKgDIK63OaATCkJVHnejcGcEq+3ufRQD+Q4ktB30kygmlRGA88= ; Message-ID: <20060221161537.91174.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.239.92.172] by web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:15:37 PST Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:15:37 -0800 (PST) From: Donald Baud To: Luigi Rizzo In-Reply-To: <20060221074134.B63818@xorpc.icir.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patch to add burst to dummynet ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:15:41 -0000 > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:57:10AM -0800, Donald > Baud wrote: > > > > > > --- Luigi Rizzo wrote: > ... > > > of course you get the same throughput! > > > the burst is just a constant in the time it > takes to > > > transfer data, > > > and it is independent of the data size. > irrespective > > > of the file > > > size you'll just finish (burst_size/bandwidth) > > > seconds earlier. > > > > > > cheers > > > luigi > > > > I ran two tests with the following ipfw rules: > > ipfw pipe 10 config bw 10kbit/s > > ipfw add 5 pipe 10 ip from 10.0.0.1 to me > > == with: if (len_scaled > q->numbytes) == > > wget --progress=dot some_file > > 0K .......... .......... 0% 1.13 KB/s > > 50K .......... .......... 1% 1.14 KB/s > > 100K .......... .......... 2% 1.14 KB/s > > 150K .......... .......... 3% 1.14 KB/s > > > > == with: if (len_scaled > q->numbytes + 100000 ) > > wget --progress=dot some_file > > 0K .......... .......... 0% 1.13 KB/s > > 50K .......... .......... 1% 1.14 KB/s > > 100K .......... .......... 2% 1.14 KB/s > > 150K .......... .......... 3% 1.14 KB/s > > and so ? as i said, the throughtput is the same, you > just see things happening a little bit (very little, > usually) earlier, > and your experiment has no notion of time, and > furthermore there are so many factors influencing > the throughput and the numbers printed by wget > that it's hard to tell how can you see the > difference. > > assuming, of course, that the patch i suggested > works, which i > think but cannot guarantee. > > cheers > luigi > Are you saying that wget bandwidth reading is incorrect? I expected to see full speed of the pipe for the first 100KBytes. I even commented out: /* if (len_scaled > q->numbytes) break ; */ While I would have expected full throughput, I got only ~10X the speed of the pipe: 0K .......... .......... 0% 8.30 KB/s 50K .......... .......... 1% 20.70 KB/s 100K .......... .......... 2% 13.80 KB/s 150K .......... .......... 3% 13.80 KB/s __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com