On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 16:13, Craig Main wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Craig Main <satuxman@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:57:00 +0200 > Subject: Alternatives to Squid > To: Gentoo User <gentoo-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Hi all, > > I have an internet cafe connected on a not so fast leased line (64k). > > I definately need to use a caching proxy. I currently use squid, and > it works fine. However if one of the terminals has a 'power surfer', > they tend to use all of the bandwidth leaving not much for the other > terminals. > > I have tryed squids delay pools, but they don't really do what I want. > What I really need is to split all the bandwidth between the terminals > that are drawing traffic fairly. > > I have setup tc qdiscs and classes on the interface between the proxy > and the terminals sharing the bandwith fairly and using sfq qdiscs for > when the limit is reached. The problem with this scenario is that > squid still pulls the info from the net unfairly, so only traffic from > squid to the terminals is managed. > > I was hoping that there might be an alternative to squid that handles > bandwidth management better. > > Can anyone recommend one, or can someone let me know of a better way > of managing the bandwidth? Look at docum.org Read that someone hacked squid for qos. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
