Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 06:22:26 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: Sebastian Mellmann <sebastian.mellmann@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw (dummynet) adds delay, but not configured to do so Message-ID: <20090306060318.O71460@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <49B020D8.8070502@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> References: <49AED3B1.1060209@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> <20090305124242.P71460@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <36832.62.206.221.107.1236237708.squirrel@anubis.getmyip.com> <20090306033309.J71460@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <49B020D8.8070502@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Sebastian Mellmann wrote: > > Paired pipes will speed things up. Maybe not noticeably for pings (call > > and response work half-duplex) but for esp TCP it could be considerable. > > How does this "pairing" of pipes work? > Couldn't find any documentation about it? Perhaps 'paired' isn't the best term for it, but see the ipfw(8) 'TRAFFIC SHAPING' section for the rationale and relevant examples. > Actually I'm using 'in recv' and 'out xmit', but it wasn't applied in > this example, but thanks for the hint again (you already mentioned that > on the freebsd-question mailing list I think ;-)). Sorry :) > For now we will stick to the delay "issue" and see how it affects our > results. Much more scientific than changing everything at once .. cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090306060318.O71460>