From: bert hubert ahu@ds9a.nl
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [LARTC] linux/tc vs packetshaper
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:14:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-98373940416941@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-lartc-98373940416936@msgid-missing>
<PRE>On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 07:07:19PM +0100, Joakim Recht wrote:
><i> Hi
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I was wondering how a Linuxbox running iproute2 and tc to do bandwidth
</I>><i> control on a 20 mbit internet connection compares? A Packeteer
</I>><i> PacketShaper 4500 costs about $20,000, and a Linuxbox can be set up for
</I>><i> much less, but can it be used for a network with some 1000 users without
</I>><i> too much trouble?
</I>
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.
><i> Following that question, how is the latency affected by a Linux router?
</I>><i> The PacketShaper should add no more than 50 msec pr packet, how does
</I>><i> Linux compare to this?
</I>
Well, AFAIK, Packeteers, which used to be quite evil wrt to corrupting IP
options by the way!, 'shape' by fooling around with TCP Window options. That
does not induce a lot of latency.
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.
><i> Now, I realize that the Packeteer thing is much easier to configure, and
</I>><i> also provides some pretty extensive statistical information, but that is
</I>><i> not necessary for me.
</I>
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
--
PowerDNS Versatile DNS Services
Trilab The Technology People
'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet
</PRE>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-02-01 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-02-01 18:07 [LARTC] linux/tc vs packetshaper Joakim
2001-02-01 21:14 ` bert [this message]
2001-02-02 0:29 ` Joakim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=marc-lartc-98373940416941@msgid-missing \
--to=lartc@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox