1 |
Quoting gentoo_steve@×××××××.uk: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Norberto Bensa wrote: |
4 |
>> Ah!! But Windows (XP) uses TC by default. It doesn't use 20% of the |
5 |
>> network bandwidth unless you tweak some registry setting and/or |
6 |
>> disable QoS in network properties. |
7 |
> That sounds like a fine plan for me... |
8 |
|
9 |
which one? remove qos from windows? nope. that would just overload |
10 |
your router. |
11 |
|
12 |
> but, erm, how does it know? Both |
13 |
> Linux and Xp talk to my router at 100mbps - and my router talks to the |
14 |
> outside world at 0.5mbps... |
15 |
|
16 |
That's the problem. It's common, don't worry. You just need to control |
17 |
how much and in which order packages are delivered to your router so |
18 |
it doesn't have to decide how to route traffic (its queue is not that |
19 |
intelligent.) It's all explained in "latrc" which I recommend you to |
20 |
read. |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
> so, while I'd be entirely happy to cap both |
24 |
> machines at 80mbps, I don't see why this would have any effect on the |
25 |
> competition for the 0.5mbps to the outside world. |
26 |
|
27 |
Yes. My iptables example was toooooo aggresive, I know. It was just an |
28 |
example. You can modify it like this: |
29 |
|
30 |
iptables -I INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT |
31 |
iptables -I INPUT -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j ACCEPT |
32 |
iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m limit --limit 50/sec -j ACCEPT |
33 |
iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -j DROP |
34 |
|
35 |
The first one takes care of localhost. You don't want to limit traffic |
36 |
on that interface :) |
37 |
|
38 |
The seccond one permits everything from the local network (change |
39 |
192.168.0.0/24 for the rights values for your local/home network) |
40 |
|
41 |
Third and fourth are the same rules I posted before. |
42 |
|
43 |
With those rules you'll get full speed on the local network and 50 |
44 |
packets per second on everything else (internet.) |
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
> What's more to the point, it doesn't seem to be Linux competing with |
48 |
> Xp, per se - but rather Linux competing with Linux - since my LAN works |
49 |
> great - and I can communicate at will between Xp and Linux - it is only |
50 |
> when Linux's bind competes with Linux's wget that I see a problem. |
51 |
> This is with two processes on the same PC. |
52 |
|
53 |
wget and bind compete for internet access. wget is eating all the |
54 |
bandwidth and bind doesn't have a chance. Do you have "forward first" |
55 |
in named.conf? If it is, comment it; it will help a bit. |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
>> try a --limit-rate (or --rate-limit; I can't never get it right) in wget. |
59 |
> I presume this is what you mean (taken from "man iptables"): |
60 |
|
61 |
nope. wget's --limit-rate. |
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
> This looks as if I can limit the rate at which my linux box talks on my |
65 |
> LAN - but this isn't what I need to do. Interestingly, long downloads |
66 |
> from two competing WinXp boxes don't cause a problem - but both will |
67 |
> max-out my available download capacity... suggesting to me that fixed |
68 |
> rate-limiting is not what is called for... |
69 |
|
70 |
Nope. "fixed rate limiting" is not the answer. You need QoS at the |
71 |
router level, but if it doesn't support it, you'll need to change how |
72 |
your Linux box talks and listen to internet packages. That's what I |
73 |
said -more or less- on my first reply. |
74 |
|
75 |
Let's make an experiment: |
76 |
|
77 |
1. Terminate all downloads and activity on the internet. |
78 |
2. Restart your bind (so it flushes its cache) |
79 |
3. in XP1 download something huge (an ISO image) from one souce in the |
80 |
internet and wait 'til it is at full speed (does it go up to 0.5Mb??) |
81 |
4. in XP2 start to ping different sources. Does XP2 lost packets? |
82 |
|
83 |
Regards, |
84 |
Norberto |
85 |
|
86 |
---------------------------------------------------------------- |
87 |
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |