On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 15:32:41 -0500, Sunil Ghai <sunilkrghai@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >problem is you need to decide what 40% of 'the bandwidth' actually is, and > >in general you do not know that if you're not paying attention to what > maximum > >has been achieved. Anything else is a guess. If you really want users to > feel > >like all their extra bandwidth is getting used without interfering with > traffic > >they want to move you cannot guess there, because tcp will back down on > both > >connections as soon as it detects congestion if they aren't prioritized. > You > >would need a mechanism to remember how fast a user's connection really is. > > Yep, setting priority is necessary otherwise the solution will not work and > I think I'll face more problems while implementing but I want to work on > this because me and many people have been facing the same problem for a long > time. Just waiting to get over with my university exams, then I'll start > working, perhaps through Google Summer of Code.. You might take at the LARTC Howto. It describes ways to can allocate bandwidth to different things in a way that doesn't force you to not waste bandwidth if some things don't need it. However for this to work well you do need some way to estimate what the capacity of the link is. Also controlling inbound traffic is hard since you can't directly stop people from sending stuff to you and excess traffic will be dropped on the other side of the link which isn't under your control. This would be useful for other things besides updates. Being able to prioritize interactive traffic over bulk traffic is something a fair number of people have use for. When you are looking at the LARTC Howto, note that it is a bit out of date. IFB interfaces replace IMQ interfaces and there isn't a lot of documentation on them. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
