On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:01:33 -0800 (PST) Chuck Kollars <ckollars9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... If I make a time-based acl with a delay-pool, does it refill > > in the time the acl is inactive or is the amount "stopped" and > > continued when the acl starts again? > > It doesn't matter hardly at all. The bucket will "overflow" and never > grow beyond the second parameter no matter what. So at most you're > just asking if the bucket _starts_out_ "full" or "empty" when the ACL > starts again. After a few tens of seconds the initial value won't > make any difference; you're just talking about a transient condition > that might last up to one minute. You skipped the part where I tell the parameters I'd like to use: >> Like, if I have a pool acl going from 9:00 till 20:00 with a size of >> 3GB and a rate of 1200 B/s, and a client runs low on the bucket at >> 20:00. What will he be able to download at 9:00 the next day? It will take one month to refill the bucket. That is what I want to do: offer a 3GB download limit each month, and if the bucket is empty, the user will be able to download at 1200B/s (or has to wait a while). It matters in my scenario. On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:47:12 +1300 Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Johannes Buchner wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I have a question about delay_pools: If I make a time-based acl > > with a delay-pool, does it refill in the time the acl is inactive > > or is the amount "stopped" and continued when the acl starts again? > > Pools refill at the constant rate unless the are full or > reconfigured. Client usage is not taken into consideration on the > filling, only on the emptying. I'm not talking about client usage, just wether the acl is active or not (since it has time constraints). > > ...if I would define one bucket for 9:00 till 20:00 and another > > one for 20:00 till 9:00 of different sizes and rates, would they > > share their amount? > > There's really only one bucket per node at a time no matter what. (It > may be possible with some uses of ACLs to make the first bucket "go > away" and the second bucket [exactly like it] "replace" it. In that > case I'd reframe your question as 'does the existing content of the > first bucket become the initial value in the second bucket?'.) Again, > it doesn't much matter. Since every bucket will "spill over" when its > defined size is reached, you're again just asking what will happen in > the first few seconds, whether the bucket will initially be "empty" > or "same as previous" or "full". After a few tens of seconds any such > initial value will be completely swamped out by the ongoing action of > the system. Amos has a different answer on this one: On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:47:12 +1300 Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Correct. No. They are different pools. Amos, ckollars, thank you for your answers. I'll just try it out and report back. Regards, Johannes -- Emails können geändert, gefälscht und eingesehen werden. Signiere oder verschüssele deine Mails mit GPG. http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0625457/pgp.html
Attachment:
pgp0R4dZiLfNs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
