"Stateless Linux" project

Roberto Peon grmoc at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 15 17:40:34 UTC 2004


Yes, use the SFQ or another fair scheduler for the network stuff.

-R


On Wednesday 15 September 2004 01:22 pm, Michael Favia wrote:
> Rudi Chiarito wrote:
> >Another problem to worry about is saturation of the link upstream. I'm
> >sure the average user wouldn't want the browser choked by rsync. Yes,
> >you can tell rsync to use at most N KB/s, but that's not always easy to
> >get right, if the user is in the position to estimate it at all - not to
> >mention that link speed might change at any time for e.g. mobile users.
>
> I've always wondered why applications are so greedy individually. Is
> there no mechanism to throttle requested bandwidth between apps? I often
> run into instances when a bit torrent uplink is saturating my uplink and
> crippling my web browsing capabilities because i dont even have enough
> space to send requests (id imagine thats the cause any way). Obviously i
> could manually divide my bandwidth but it often changes (laptop and on
> cable modem with variable up/down at home, bottomless connection speeds
> at work). Is the overhead of such a monitoring system too high for the
> benefit? Has it been attempted? There seem to be so many advantages to
> such a system with the increasing popularity of higbandwidth activities
> and the general user (Bittorrent, video on demand, aMule, Music
> services) It just seems like a self auditing network interface would
> make sense here.
>
> --
> Michael Favia           michael at insitesinc dot com
> Insites Incorporated    http://michael.insitesinc.com





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list