On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 16:13, Craig Main wrote:> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Craig Main <satuxman@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:57:00 +0200
> Subject: Alternatives to Squid
> To: Gentoo User <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have an internet cafe connected on a not so fast leased line (64k).
>
> I definately need to use a caching proxy. I currently use squid, and
> it works fine. However if one of the terminals has a ''power
surfer'',
> they tend to use all of the bandwidth leaving not much for the other
> terminals.
>
> I have tryed squids delay pools, but they don''t really do what I
want.
> What I really need is to split all the bandwidth between the terminals
> that are drawing traffic fairly.
>
> I have setup tc qdiscs and classes on the interface between the proxy
> and the terminals sharing the bandwith fairly and using sfq qdiscs for
> when the limit is reached. The problem with this scenario is that
> squid still pulls the info from the net unfairly, so only traffic from
> squid to the terminals is managed.
>
> I was hoping that there might be an alternative to squid that handles
> bandwidth management better.
>
> Can anyone recommend one, or can someone let me know of a better way
> of managing the bandwidth?
Look at docum.org
Read that someone hacked squid for qos.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/