Hello Udo, On 23-08-08 09:25, Udo van den Heuvel wrote: > Chris Kuethe wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Udo van den Heuvel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> We limit up/download speed in apps and using wondershaper, yet still our >>> time is deemed unworthy.
It's not about what you do, but how your system is observed from the outside. >> But have you prioritized time above all else? > > It worked without wondershaper. > And doesn't wondershaper sort exactly that kind of stuff out? Wondershaper is a good starting point, but you have to customise the script. You also have to tune it and try it out: you may have to set UPLOAD and DOWNLOAD a bit lower than expected to see an actual reduction in your up/download speed. If you see a little drop in your (up/)downloads (ftp the 100MB_random.bin from(/to) your ISP's ftp server), then you will see good ping times. As long as you don't see any drop (and huge ping times), WS is not limiting at all and prioritising is useless! Furthermore, WS does special way of download limiting. Instead of the default, I added rate limiting on outgoing ACK packages to limit my downloads. Again, I tuned the rate so that it just reduced my downloads (and keeps 64kbps free for my VoIP line:-) ). I sent you my config off-list. Just to be sure, is *all* your traffic routed through the server with wondershaper? Any PC/gaming console/VoIP-phone that is directly connected to your ADSL-modem or switch between modem and server (by wire or wifi) is *not* shaped by WS and can totally fill your line. > If not, please educate us. Feel free to contact me off-list in Dutch. Arnold _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
