On 12/6/05, Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kenneth Kalmer wrote: > > >>Are we talking about ingress or egress? > > > > > > Egress, all my ingress experiments worked 100% (mostly prioritization, > > that's all) > > That's handy I was expecting you to say ingress. > > Outbound should be totally under your control. > > > > >>How much bandwidth do you have (and how much are you sacrificing)? > > > > > > Sadly, only 512kbits but upgrading to 1024kbits in Feb > > You have 512kbit upstream - symmetrical dsl - what rate do you set htb? ADSL, 512kbps down and 256kbps up. Parent for the internet traffic is set at 500kbps, to make sure it becomes the bottleneck... > > > > >>What are the lengths of queues for each user? > > > > Pardon me? > > It's less relevant for egress - for ingress shaping the length of the > queues if too long can mess things up, and unless you use esfq it would > have been hard when shaping 200 users to reduce it/them. I attach an esfq to each child HTB, but as you say it would be less relevenat for egress... > > > > > > >>What is the link DSL/other? > > > > > > ADSL, African style... > > Not sdsl then - is your egress 512? > > Do you know what type of connection you have eg pppoa/e or bridged ip > etc. I assume whatever it is ends up as atm cells? Barely, as said above it's 512/256 VPN. Underneath the VPN it runs PPPoE, but the service simulates a leased line, static ip's, the works... > > Andy. > -- 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
