On 12/5/05, Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kenneth Kalmer wrote: > > Guys > > > > Considering the festive season is upon us, thanks to everyone > > contributing to the list and helping all the readers with your great > > input! I don't want to mention names, I'll most certainly leave > > someone out. > > > > With this mail I'd like to test some theory on bandwidth management, > > with my own successes and failures during the past year. > > > > Sharing a link between 200 users > > > > This has probably been my worst headache this year, since all the > > trials go well but the implementation doesn't run as expected. So here > > goes. We have one connection that is shared by 200 users. Mostly > > students, so abuse is rampant. Each user should have an upper-limit > > for speed, but the upper limit times the number of users exceed the > > link capacity (over subscription). The speed must degrade as more and > > more users are online, so that in peak times the link must still be > > usable for each and every user, even if dreadfully slow. > > > > Here is the implementation in theory: > > Total internet capacity: X > > Total number of users: 200 > > Minimum transfer rates: Y = X / 200 > > Maximum transfer rates: Z = 8 * Y > > Over subscription rate: 1:50 > > Are we talking about ingress or egress? Egress, all my ingress experiments worked 100% (mostly prioritization, that's all) > How much bandwidth do you have (and how much are you sacrificing)? Sadly, only 512kbits but upgrading to 1024kbits in Feb > What are the lengths of queues for each user? Pardon me? > What is the link DSL/other? ADSL, African style... -- Kenneth Kalmer kenneth.kalmer@xxxxxxxxx Folding@home stats http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&username=kenneth%2Ekalmer _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
