Yes, use the SFQ or another fair scheduler for the network stuff. -R On Wednesday 15 September 2004 01:22 pm, Michael Favia wrote: > Rudi Chiarito wrote: > >Another problem to worry about is saturation of the link upstream. I'm > >sure the average user wouldn't want the browser choked by rsync. Yes, > >you can tell rsync to use at most N KB/s, but that's not always easy to > >get right, if the user is in the position to estimate it at all - not to > >mention that link speed might change at any time for e.g. mobile users. > > I've always wondered why applications are so greedy individually. Is > there no mechanism to throttle requested bandwidth between apps? I often > run into instances when a bit torrent uplink is saturating my uplink and > crippling my web browsing capabilities because i dont even have enough > space to send requests (id imagine thats the cause any way). Obviously i > could manually divide my bandwidth but it often changes (laptop and on > cable modem with variable up/down at home, bottomless connection speeds > at work). Is the overhead of such a monitoring system too high for the > benefit? Has it been attempted? There seem to be so many advantages to > such a system with the increasing popularity of higbandwidth activities > and the general user (Bittorrent, video on demand, aMule, Music > services) It just seems like a self auditing network interface would > make sense here. > > -- > Michael Favia michael at insitesinc dot com > Insites Incorporated http://michael.insitesinc.com
