Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:56:55 -0800 From: William Carrel <william.a@carrel.org> To: pjklist@ekahuna.com Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing Message-ID: <C4A5672A-FA7D-11D5-A21C-003065D5E9A4@carrel.org> In-Reply-To: <3C2A1786.17075.63462D@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, December 26, 2001, at 06:31 PM, Philip J. Koenig wrote: > The problem with this is that we DON'T always want every link to > operate at its "maximum" setting. > > I have little interest in giving huge chunks of bandwidth to every > miscellaneous user (and along with it the ability to do something > dumb like bog the whole network down when they accidentally drag > their entire hard drive icon to a network drive) when their work > amounts to saving a couple of word processing documents to a server > each day. Those people don't even need 10Mbps of bandwidth, much > less 100 or more. Using switch settings to obtain this sort of configuration/protection is at best crude. Try dummynet(4) and/or some QoS capable network hardware. Or use some reporting software in conjunction to a packet sniffer and levy penalties on those that "abuse" the network. There are lots of approaches that can make this work. Trying to juryrig your switch ports to run in some sort of half-baked mode is definately not the most efficient approach at solving this problem. > All switches should have configurable ports, IMHO. Managed switches aren't for every scenario, particularly when some of us would rather spend $3000 to purchase mountain bikes than network equipment for our home. (Granted the prices are coming down on smaller managed switches, but...) -- wac To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C4A5672A-FA7D-11D5-A21C-003065D5E9A4>