1998-10-09 14:08:18[permalink] [raw]
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Sure - you're saying that just because you're downloading an
>> application for a customer, nobody else should be able to use that
>> link - and I have to say that I disagree with that viewpoint.
> TCP/IP doesnt claim to be fair
True, but irrelevant - whether or not TCP/IP is fair has no bearing on
whether the users should show the sort of greed implied by the message
I replied to...
>> IMHO, the fact that an FTP transfer will automatically grab 100% of
>> the bandwidth of one's primary link given the slightest chance can
>> only be bad - and the same applies to any other protocol. What I'd
>> like to see is some form of bandwidth limiting system which prevents
>> any one protocol from grabbing more than 90% of the bandwidth to
>> itself, but which allows any protocol to use all otherwise unused
>> bandwidth if it needs it, but automatically relinquishes the excess
>> bandwidth as soon as anything else needs it.
> Its called CBQ and Linux 2.1.x supports it.
Two points here.
1. It's good to know that such a thing exists.
2. Does Linux apply it automatically when the remote end is also a
Linux system? If not, there's little incentive for others to
also support it.
> Don't expect ISP end user ports to support it in the next 5 years
> however, $10/month customers arent worth the CPU cost of such
Somehow, that doesnae surprise me...
Best wishes from Riley.