Hi! Currently I''m controlling 4 Mbit Connection based on the source and destination ports, so that ftp traffic doesn''t clog the line and udp packets and other time critical things (ssh, irc, etc...) get priority. Normally that works just fine, but two problems remain: - How do I recognize traffic from non-standard ports? (like a ftp-server on port 1337) - Big http-transfers still clog the line I want my users to be able to surf fast. But when they download big files from a webserver this transfer should be slowed down. Perhaps a way to slow down any connection that exceeds a certain size would solve both problems. Any suggestions, pointers or ideas for a better policy are welcome! Arvid -- in bunten Bildern wenig Klarheit, viel Irrtum und ein Fünkchen Wahrheit (Johann Wolfgang v. Goethe)
> Hi! > Currently I''m controlling 4 Mbit Connection based onthe source and> destination ports, so that ftp traffic doesn''t clogthe line and udp packets> and other time critical things (ssh, irc, etc...) getpriority.> > Normally that works just fine, but two problemsremain:> > - How do I recognize traffic from non-standard ports? > (like a ftp-server on port 1337) > > - Big http-transfers still clog the line > I want my users to be able to surf fast. But whenthey download> big files from a webserver this transfer should beslowed down.> > Perhaps a way to slow down any connection thatexceeds a certain size would> solve both problems. Any suggestions, pointers orideas for a better policy> are welcome!WFQ seems to do just this, but in lack of any real implementation there is wrr: http://wipl-wrr.sourceforge.net/ It has the ability to automatically lower the weights of streams with high bandwidth-usage. --- John Bäckstrand
On Fre, 12 Jul 2002, John Bäckstrand wrote:>> Perhaps a way to slow down any connection that exceeds a certain size >> would solve both problems. Any suggestions, pointers or ideas for a >> better policy are welcome! > >WFQ seems to do just this, but in lack of any real >implementation there is wrr:I just tried it, but it didn''t seem to work. At least I could not make out any difference between with or without shaping (same lousy behaviour when one host started too much traffic). The clases DID receive traffic, as far as I can tell from a ''tc -s qdisc''. Perhaps I missed something with the parameters and misconfigured it. :-( But I managed to crash my router several times (kernel panik) when using the wrr-module. cu Arvid -- in bunten Bildern wenig Klarheit, viel Irrtum und ein Fünkchen Wahrheit (Johann Wolfgang v. Goethe)
> On Fre, 12 Jul 2002, John Bäckstrand wrote: > >> Perhaps a way to slow down any connection thatexceeds a certain size> >> would solve both problems. Any suggestions,pointers or ideas for a> >> better policy are welcome! > > > >WFQ seems to do just this, but in lack of any real > >implementation there is wrr: > > I just tried it, but it didn''t seem to work. At leastI could not make out> any difference between with or without shaping (samelousy behaviour when> one host started too much traffic). The clases DIDreceive traffic, as far> as I can tell from a ''tc -s qdisc''. Perhaps I missedsomething with the> parameters and misconfigured it. :-( > > But I managed to crash my router several times(kernel panik) when using the> wrr-module.Hmm, Ive been using it a day or so with 2 boxes, no problems at all, though I havent been able to test with different amount of traffic if the weighing really works. Which kernel are you using? Did you ask about your problems on the wrr mailinglist? --- John Bäckstrand