Hmm, just has an idea, dunno if this will work... Can I use WRR on an IMQ disc to make sure that the incoming traffic is not saturated by a single squid request? Squid runs transparently, and I've noticed that it downloads the file faster than the client gets it from squid, so big downloads can very easily congest the link... Possible? On 6/7/05, Kenneth Kalmer <kenneth.kalmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jonathan > > I've got a full HTB setup currently, and I'm just looking at other > options for greener pastures. The thing at the moment is that we offer > internet to students, and South African bandwidth is probably the most > expensive in the world... We want to limit things to stop abusive > behaviour even before it begins... > > My main concern is that since we do overschedule the available > bandwidth, I need everyone's bandwidth to degrade equally, depending > on the amount of users. Currently I basically set my rules like this: > > rate = total rate / num of users > ceil = total rate / 8 > > I'm just worried about the equal degrading of everyones links.. > > Anycase, I just thought that WRR might offer a smoother experience for > the users, but I'll stick with my HTB setup for now since it's working > beautifully. If anybody has an alternative suggestion, please shout. > > Thanks for the reply though. > > On 6/7/05, Jonathan Day <imipak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > For something like this, where you're wanting to do > > bandwidth capping, you're probably better off with > > something like CBQ, which supports limits. > > > > It sounds like you want soft limits of 4% (a fair > > slice, when 25 users are present) and hard limits of > > 25%. > > > > Another option would be to use WRR and then use > > pattern-matching in Netfilter to set the hard limit. > > > > Part of the problem is that there are a very large > > number of "Quality of Service" protocols, of which > > Linux supports some, but that there is no really clear > > cheat-sheet on what to use when, what works well with > > what, and what capabilities each QoS method has. > > > > Jonathan > > > > --- Kenneth Kalmer <kenneth.kalmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Guys > > > > > > All the recent discussions recently, and the > > > knowledge of a 2.6 port, > > > of WRR has made me very keen on trying it. I had a > > > look at the docs > > > and examples know but my mind is not in a very > > > receptive state. > > > > > > Take this simple example. > > > > > > Incoming internet connection of 1mbps. Shared > > > between up to 25 users > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > I know that WRR can fairly distribute the traffic > > > amongst the > > > currently connected clients at any specific time. > > > I'd like to know how > > > can I restrict any client from getting more than > > > 256kbps (or 25%) of > > > the total link speed, even when they are the only > > > users. > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Kenneth Kalmer > > > kenneth.kalmer@xxxxxxxxx > > > http://opensourcery.blogspot.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > LARTC mailing list > > > LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > -- > > Kenneth Kalmer > kenneth.kalmer@xxxxxxxxx > http://opensourcery.blogspot.com > -- Kenneth Kalmer kenneth.kalmer@xxxxxxxxx http://opensourcery.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
