Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:47:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sendmail's outgoing IPs Message-ID: <20080615164551.D55900@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1080615235150.11687B-100000@gaia.nimnet.asn.au> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1080615235150.11687B-100000@gaia.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > something like "T1" here costs far too much to dedicate it just for mails. > > > > for the same price i can get four "4Mbit/s" ADSL's (which i have now), > > that actually gives 4Mbit/s download speed, but only 512kbps upload. > > Lucky you. We have a 1500/256kbps link for up to 20 boxes, though > there's talk of upgrading to (nominally) 8M/384kbps. i have 300 users. and all works quite fast :) > > if you substract ACK's needed for 4Mbit/s download, little is left. > > Slight exaggeration, though TCP downloads do need say 5-10% of download count 10 as HTTP requests can be large. that's 400kbit/s from 512 available! > bandwidth upstream. Sure, as soon as you use all upload bandwidth (your > mail example, torrents of course, youtube uploads etc) your download ipfw rules make sure upload bandwidth isn't saturated. it's just a problem that few is left for something else > > is a problem now. > > Why not add dummynet pipes and suitable rules to limit the outbound > bandwidth for mail (or torrents, whatever's a problem) to a maximum of > say 80% of upload, so for 512k set upload limit to maybe 400k, leaving i am already doing this.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080615164551.D55900>