Do they charge you for download traffic or both for dowload/upload? If you
are in the first case, this slight modification in the wondershaper script
should do the trick.
## downlink #
# slow downloads down to somewhat less than the real speed to prevent
# queuing at our ISP.
Ups, sorry, I did one mistake, I forgot we are filtering incoming traffic
and the we need to match destination ip. Also there is no need to filter the
hole subnet, so we can set the mask to 32. So this would be the result:
## downlink #
# slow downloads down to somewhat less
I just have noticed another thing, I just copied the filter but should be
given a different (lower) prio value. I'm not sure whether this is really
necessary, but I think that it is better to do so:
## downlink #
# slow downloads down to somewhat less than the real speed to
Sorry again and again, I've just noticed that gmail adds some odd
stuff to the text version of my mails, so this is the definitive (I
hope):
## downlink #
# slow downloads down to somewhat less than the real speed to prevent
# queuing at our ISP. Tune to see how high you can
I tried this, but it doesn't seem to be making any change at all,
unfortunately. I started a large download from ftp.kernel.org and it
was still coming full steam ahead. I let it go on for a minute or two,
hoping it would eventually start to be throttled, but no dice. Is
there perhaps any
Mm, could you please post the output of this other command?
tc -s filter show dev eth0 parent :
I've searched a little bit and I think that this solution is not going
to work, sorry, I would do the tests on my own machine but for the
moment this is not possible...
If it is what I'm
I am interested in the incoming traffic (from Internet to lan users).
This is the problem.
Then there is no possibility to change the shaping to the bottleneck, as
long as it is in the ISP routers. So you have to artificially create it in
order to have a queue you can shape. There's only two
Ahh OK embedded. There may be hope then. I know that TI AR7 based
routers don't have a buffer beyond the device. The one I tested didn't
have any qdiscs built in apart from TIs prio/wrr, but it did work
without any rate limiting.
Then I am a lucky guy, this is mine:
IMHO, the priomap explanation in the 9.2.1.1. of the LARTC HOWTO is not
clear enough. I only understood it's real behavior until I read this
document from Russell Stuart:
http://ace-host.stuart.id.au/russell/files/tc/doc/tc/priority.txt So, based
in this information, I've prepared an alternative
There is some queue disciplines like esfq and WRR (w. But theses ones only
work if you know the actual bandwidth.
As far as I undestand, at least sfq should work without knowing the actual
bandwith (you don't need to specify it in the qdisc creation). The problem
with it is that it only works
Really, I only understood what the *priorities* of the priomap were until I
read this other document from him:
http://ace-host.stuart.id.au/russell/files/tc/doc/tc/priority.txt
The document I prepared was just an alternative for the priomap section of
the howto based on this information, the only
Probably, both my PCI modems still had big buffers beyond the ppp that I
shaped on. Even if nas0 did only accept traffic when it had finished
transmitting I don't think you could do what you want above.
The problem is that DSL sync rates are ATM rates so there are quite alot
of overheads. A
Hi, I would like to make a QoS configuration on a linux based dsl router. It
is for a server, so I want to shape outgoing traffic, incoming traffic
should not be a problem as long as I have a quite assymetric connection. I
would like to achieve the following goals:
1) To have one class (p2p)
13 matches
Mail list logo
