We deal with this by using either SFQ or, preferably, Procera. SFQ is free,
works pretty well in most cases.
-- Original message--From: Kade Sullivan via AfDate: Mon, Oct 13, 2014
2:18 PMTo: af@afmug.com;Subject:Re: [AFMUG] How to deal with constant customer
internet
So it's becoming a reoccurring nightmare for me. I get a customer calling
in saying their internet is slow. It ends up being their upstream or
downstream or both are totally maxed out for hours on end. Unfortunately,
my responsibility does not stop there.
We have been going the route of
care to post an (anonymized) cacti chart for a customer? I'm curious what
kind of usage patterns we are talking about here.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Kade Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com wrote:
So it's becoming a reoccurring nightmare for me. I get a customer calling
in saying their
Have you tried PCQ with lower priority on connections that have moved
more data? See below. That's saying any connection that has moved less
than 50,000,000 bytes gets priority 7, while any connection moving more
than that gets the default priority 8.
Before I did this, if I ran a torrent
This is exactly what I had envisioned in my mind. I can not thank you
enough.
On Oct 13, 2014 3:33 PM, Adam Moffett via Af af@afmug.com wrote:
Have you tried PCQ with lower priority on connections that have moved more
data? See below. That's saying any connection that has moved less than
] *On Behalf Of *Kade Sullivan
via Af
*Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 12:47 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] How to deal with constant customer internet
saturation.
So it's becoming a reoccurring nightmare for me. I get a customer
calling in saying their internet is slow. It ends
Since it's on the forefront of my mind now, I just went ahead and added
a tiny-download packet mark for connections that moved less than 1
million bytes. tiny-download gets priority 6 in the queue tree.
Something like 20% of traffic seems to fit that description.
I think I'll keep it.
