Ron Senykoff wrote: > Sorry for the duplicate emails Eric... > >>> Instead of branching out, you could create a custom QOS, configdb and >>> moddb package and a lwp plugin. The packages can be merged in an automatic >>> way with the standard package to an image. This way you can just keep pace >>> with Bering-uClibc development without putting effort in creating images >>> on your own. > > This sounds great. I'll read up on all the docs for 3.0 over the next > few days and of course, ask questions. ;) > >>> Btw, what's wrong with shorewall's QOS implementation? > > 1 - requires shorewall (the goal here is QoS, not firewalling or > trying to solve every problem in one package)
right, you don't have to turn on the firewalling part of shorewall > 2 - the last I checked shorewall still required that you define your > own QoS parameters, edit config files etc. In QBox, the default > installation allows you to simply plug in your bandwidth specs and > ports / IPs that you'd like to manage. no, that was completely rewritten a while back, and later even made operable :-) I use it now and it works quite well. > 3 - QBox uses well tested queueing schemes. For example, would you > want to apply SFQ (Stochastic Fairness Queueing) to video traffic? > Short answer: no. Long answer: I've tried this, and found that every > time the SFQ algorithm rehashes (default is 30 secs I believe) you > will get 'pops' in audio and video. interesting for the cases where you're doing video over udp/rtp I'd like to see that fixed in shorewall's framework > The goal of QBox is to allow someone who knows absolutely nothing > about linux, queuing schemes, or text editors to implement QoS at home > or a small to mid office environment. A friend of mine is running one > on a 10Mb internet link no problem. I picked the PC Engines WRAP board > as something I will maintain an image for, so people don't have to > deal with any hardware / driver issues. My install directions include > Windows step by step to use syslinux to install. If you use the WRAP > board, it just works out of the box like a Linksys router or the like. > Also, by sticking with some defined hardwaree platform(s), I hope to > provide accurate measurements of throughput capability. This becomes > more important as I add Layer 7 filtering capability. One of the things I always bitch about here (and unfortunately don't help enough with) is improving on exactly this thing -- the packaging and installation of B-U along with the dev environment. If you feel the same way, it would be totally cool if you would be willing to take some time and look at the updates to B-U and shorewall since the last time you looked, and consider adding your effort to the existing distribution. I don't think the goals of the projects are dissimilar, I just think that the priorities are not. With someone actually spending real time working on adapting B-U to your target audience (e.g. yourself and any others who jump on your bandwagon as soon as they see how cool the work is that you're doing), you'll be able to focus on QoS and UI issues rather than that plus all the other stuff of building your own special distribution as a fork. Best of luck either way, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
