[LARTC] elementary usage clamping

[LARTC] elementary usage clamping

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1185 bytes --]

I'm pretty smart, and was once regarded as pretty network and computer
savvy.  But the world has obviously passed me by!

I have a server in a colocation facility, and I was recently hit by a
bill for overage; I used more bandwidth than I expected, and I must
pay. 

So now, I want to bother with packet shaping on the server.  The *most*
important thing is to clamp bandwidth to the 1Mbps that my contract
allows for.  This is well within my ordinary usage; there is no reason
for me to want more.  But I must be careful about overage: when I am
transferring large amounts of data, I don't mind waiting for how long it
takes at 1Mbps (minus overhead), but I certainly don't want to pay lots
extra!

This is the most important thing.  The next thing is that, once the
bandwidth has been clamped, I want to have the ability to be flexible
about shaping traffic.  Obviously such things as ssh need priority, and
then AFS, and then ftp and http.  But this is still really only a
single-user case, so even if the shaping is not so great, it's ok.

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what tcng syntax would get me
what I want.  Can someone help me?

Thomas


[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] elementary usage clamping

[Marco Aurelio]

use the HTB wondershaper that can be found at lartc.org

On 6/6/07, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> I'm pretty smart, and was once regarded as pretty network and computer
> savvy.  But the world has obviously passed me by!
>
> I have a server in a colocation facility, and I was recently hit by a
> bill for overage; I used more bandwidth than I expected, and I must
> pay.
>
> So now, I want to bother with packet shaping on the server.  The *most*
> important thing is to clamp bandwidth to the 1Mbps that my contract
> allows for.  This is well within my ordinary usage; there is no reason
> for me to want more.  But I must be careful about overage: when I am
> transferring large amounts of data, I don't mind waiting for how long it
> takes at 1Mbps (minus overhead), but I certainly don't want to pay lots
> extra!
>
> This is the most important thing.  The next thing is that, once the
> bandwidth has been clamped, I want to have the ability to be flexible
> about shaping traffic.  Obviously such things as ssh need priority, and
> then AFS, and then ftp and http.  But this is still really only a
> single-user case, so even if the shaping is not so great, it's ok.
>
> I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what tcng syntax would get me
> what I want.  Can someone help me?
>
> Thomas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list
> LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
>
>
>


-- 
Marco Casaroli
SapucaiNet Telecom
+55 35 34712377 ext 5
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] elementary usage clamping

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 997 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 12:42 -0300, Marco Aurelio wrote:
> use the HTB wondershaper that can be found at lartc.org

Thanks for your reply.  I looked at wondershaper, and I could not tell
from the documentation whether it actually limited the rate of packets
transmitted, and policed incoming packets, in a reliable fashion.

In other words, all the documentation I see is written as if it is
addressing the case of a residential customer with a bandwidth-limited
connection (cable modem, say), that has large queues, and arranges to
shape on the box instead of on the connection's queues, allowing for
better and more sensitive control.

But it still seemed (from what I read) as if it tries to keep the pipe
as full as possible, merely reordering packets carefully, in which case
I'm sure to lose, because I *don't want* the pipe as full as possible; I
want to dribble bits out the pipe to conform to the pricing I have
agreed with my ISP.

Am I missing something?

Thomas


[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] elementary usage clamping

[Marco Aurelio]

On 6/6/07, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 12:42 -0300, Marco Aurelio wrote:
> > use the HTB wondershaper that can be found at lartc.org
>
> Thanks for your reply.  I looked at wondershaper, and I could not tell
> from the documentation whether it actually limited the rate of packets
> transmitted, and policed incoming packets, in a reliable fashion.
What do you mean by reliable fashion? The upstream is hard limited by
the kernel. So it is absolutely reliable. The data people send you
(downstream) you cannot control directly.

>
> In other words, all the documentation I see is written as if it is
> addressing the case of a residential customer with a bandwidth-limited
> connection (cable modem, say), that has large queues, and arranges to
> shape on the box instead of on the connection's queues, allowing for
> better and more sensitive control.

You can use it in your environment. The wondershaper limits your
traffic a bit less than the link speed, for the packets to be queued
in the kernel and not in the modem (hub, switch, etc), so you can
reserve some resources for the real time traffic.

In your case, the modems or hubs may almost never queue.


Please tell me more about the limits of the provider. You say that
they bill you if you use more than 1Mbps? I mean, this is strange
because they normally define a transfer quota (eg: 100GB per month)
and not a bandwidth limit.

And also, what services are you providing in this server?
>
> But it still seemed (from what I read) as if it tries to keep the pipe
> as full as possible, merely reordering packets carefully, in which case
> I'm sure to lose, because I *don't want* the pipe as full as possible; I
> want to dribble bits out the pipe to conform to the pricing I have
> agreed with my ISP.
>

You don't keep the pipe as full as possible all the time. Only when
you are sending more than the limit rate you specified in the script.
> Am I missing something?
>
> Thomas
>
>
>


-- 
Marco Casaroli
SapucaiNet Telecom
+55 35 34712377 ext 5
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc