Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262529AbTHaGa1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:30:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262533AbTHaGa1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:30:27 -0400 Received: from [213.39.233.138] ([213.39.233.138]:44209 "EHLO wohnheim.fh-wedel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262529AbTHaGa0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:30:26 -0400 Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 08:30:20 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel To: Pascal Schmidt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bandwidth for bkbits.net (good news) Message-ID: <20030831063020.GA30196@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2165 Lines: 51 On Sun, 31 August 2003 00:58:33 +0200, Pascal Schmidt wrote: > > All you have to do is drop the incoming packets if they exceed > a certain bandwidth. That will stop the corresponding ack automatically > since your TCP stack won't even see the packet. You've cut away the part where I explained that you don't want to throw away the incoming packet. Yes, the stupid approach works, but it is still stupid. > I'm doing this on my ISDN line to limit the rest of the house to one > third of the bandwidth even if they're all busy downloading tons of > warez. I'm paying, I want the bandwidth when I need it. They can get > it all when there's no traffic for my machine. > > No problem with the HTB queueing discipline. But latency just went boom. On your side, your packets will come out quickly because the queue is short. But on your ISP's side, there is a single queue for both your and the warez' traffic. Your packets will get thrown away just as much, as theirs. > Yes, latency is a problem if you want to saturate your bandwidth. It is > easy to guarantee some bandwith for latency critical stuff - just > don't give out that piece of bandwith to something else. Of course, > then most of the time that piece is wasted... This works if your latency requirements are moderate or the pipe is big. Assume 5ms and ISDN and you have a window of 400 Bytes roughly. Each time you happen to receive 400 Bytes of packets at the same time, you hear a pause. A single large packet is more than that. Oops! For Larry's T1 line, the numbers naturally go up, but it still doesn't take a huge amount of packets. > and it doesn't help with problems somewhere along the net. Compared to ISDN or T1, the net usually has big pipes and people tend to care about low latency, so that problem doesn't even exist compared with the receiving end. J?rn -- Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/