From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joakim Recht god@cs.auc.dk Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:29:26 +0000 Subject: [LARTC] linux/tc vs packetshaper Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org 
bert hubert wrote:

> 
> Number of users is not that big an issue. We've filtered 90mbit/s of traffic
> with Linux, but we currently only shape up to 5mbit/s. However, the sites we
> filter have >100 http connections per second, which each take a few seconds
> to complete, so I'd guess that at any one time we have ~300 tcp/ip sessions
> running. 
> 
> I bet a 1000 users would not come near to that amount of sessions.

Well, I've had to increase /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_conntrack_max from 16k 
to a larger value on a network with 300 users, so something tells me 
that quite a lot of connections are open.

> 
> Regular shaping might induce more, but it hasn't been a problem for us so
> far. As long as you are not actively shaping (ie, remain below your
> bandwidth ceiling), we don't see *any* additional latency.

This is the problem for me... The connection is to be distributed 
between some 8 college dorms, and the users here use quite a lot of 
bandwidth right now, as we are connected to a university connection. 
However, we are about to buy our own, which means a pretty crowded 20 
mbit connection, and as each dorm should be guaranteed an amount of 
bandwidth, shaping could occur very often, at least at peak hours in the 
afternoon/evening.

> We've only configured our shaping solution once, using the excellent
> CBQ.init script. Takes little time, and then runs on without any problems.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> bert hubert
> 
Thanks for your reply,

-- 
Joakim Recht
Tlf. 20 85 54 77
Email god@cs.auc.dk
WWW http://www.braindump.dk / http://www.compuclub.dk