Hi, I''ve read through the bigger parts of the docs, but I''m still fairly new to this, so I would like to ask you for a little advice. I''ve set up a 266Mhz-Linux-Router running a "Bering"-LEAF distribution, which provides shaping of a 2 Mbit SDSL-Line for about 90 users. We have quite a lot of P2P-users (student''s dorm *g*), so the link became congested quite regularly. I''ve set up 90 subclasses borrowing from a HTB root class. Traffic is filtered to them based on (static) source IPs. The main reason for this are the users saying: "I''ve paid for my share of bandwidth, which should be at least xy kBps, so that''s the least I can expect!" Now I would like to prioritize interactive traffic for every user, too. What''s the most elegant way to do this? Create 90 more classes with a better priority? Isn''t there a better way? Thanks for your patience, Björn Snippe Hannover, Germany _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Jason Tackaberry
2003-Jan-26 17:18 UTC
Re: share 2Mbit between 90 users - what''s sensible?
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 11:13, Björn Snippe wrote:> which provides shaping of a 2 Mbit SDSL-Line for about 90 users. > We have quite a lot of P2P-users (student''s dorm *g*), so the linkI have a similar setup. I''m a bit better off -- 3Mbit for our small campus, which includes about 50-60 dorm users. I''ve allocated about 2.2Mbit up/down for the residences, so they can never exceed that. We have our share of p2p users too. At first I tried creating a p2p class and assigning known p2p ports to that class, but it was just too difficult to keep up with it.> Now I would like to prioritize interactive traffic for every user, too. > What''s the most elegant way to do this? Create 90 more classes with a > better priority?What you want is ESFQ (you can google it). This lets you hash based on source and dest IPs as well. So, instead of creating 90 separate subclasses, you just attach an esfq qdisc to your htb class that hashes on source IP for your internet interface, and dest IP for your dorm interface. When there is competition for bandwidth, it will be shared evenly between users, no matter how many concurrent sessions they have running. This means you don''t need to make N subclasses for N users. To improve responsiveness, I put ACKs and SYNs in a separate, high priority class. With a reasonable burst rate (I use 50k), this means that things like web browsing is still fairly snappy, even when there is a fair bit of bandwidth competition going on. I''ve been running this (HTB + ESFQ) for many months and am quite happy with it. So are my users. I still try to educate everyone about disabling uploading in their p2p programs, which tends to require constant reminders, but overall they''re pretty good. Cheers, Jason. -- Jason Tackaberry :: tack@auc.ca :: 705-949-2301 x330 Academic Computing Support Specialist Information Technology Services Algoma University College :: www.auc.ca _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
wondershaper has a set of rules for this. Why not borrow those rules and implement them? Mohan -----Original Message----- From: lartc-admin@mailman.ds9a.nl [mailto:lartc-admin@mailman.ds9a.nl]On Behalf Of Björn Snippe Sent: 26 January 2003 21:44 To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl Subject: [LARTC] share 2Mbit between 90 users - what''s sensible? Hi, I''ve read through the bigger parts of the docs, but I''m still fairly new to this, so I would like to ask you for a little advice. I''ve set up a 266Mhz-Linux-Router running a "Bering"-LEAF distribution, which provides shaping of a 2 Mbit SDSL-Line for about 90 users. We have quite a lot of P2P-users (student''s dorm *g*), so the link became congested quite regularly. I''ve set up 90 subclasses borrowing from a HTB root class. Traffic is filtered to them based on (static) source IPs. The main reason for this are the users saying: "I''ve paid for my share of bandwidth, which should be at least xy kBps, so that''s the least I can expect!" Now I would like to prioritize interactive traffic for every user, too. What''s the most elegant way to do this? Create 90 more classes with a better priority? Isn''t there a better way? Thanks for your patience, Björn Snippe Hannover, Germany _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
S Mohan schrieb:> wondershaper has a set of rules for this. Why not borrow those rules and > implement them? > > MohanI know and will doubtless, shamelessly borrow them :) (Thanks, Bert!) ESFQ and WRR (as suggested by Jason and Torge) both sound interesting, so I will stop now an try them :) Thanks to you all, Björn _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/