Hello,
I was interested in knowing if Dummynet is supported on Windows 7 x64.
I tried on 32 bit Windows 7 and works good.
If it should work on 64 bit Windoows 7, can you let me know the install
procedure.
Or do you have a digitally signed ipfw.sys ?
Thanks
Rama
http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/dummynet/#58be
I wanted to do http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dummynet first, but it'll still help
for other issues that might come up when using it on windows.
On 5/7/2013 4:17 PM, Rama Varma wrote:
Hello,
I was interested in knowing if Dummynet is supported on Windows
Hello there
I use freebsd8.2
I added dummynet and other followings into the kernel;
options IPFIREWALL #firewall
options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE #print information about
options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD #enable trasparent proxy support
options IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT #allow everything by default
dummynet
piping first, if it is to apply also to forwarded packets.
(sysctl)
net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass: 1
When set, the packet exiting from the dummynet pipe or from
ng_ipfw(4) node is not passed though the firewall again.
Other
Hi folks,
I already found the mistake of my ruleset sequence on my box, for ex:
${fwcmd} add 30 fwd ${ipproxy},${portproxy} tcp from ${ipclproxy} to
any dst-port ${porthttp} in via ${ifint0}
${fwcmd} add 52 pipe 2 ip from any to ${ipclient} via ${ifint0}
${fwcmd} add 53 pipe 3 ip from
the last sentence. You'll have to do your dummynet
piping first, if it is to apply also to forwarded packets.
(sysctl)
net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass: 1
When set, the packet exiting from the dummynet pipe or from
ng_ipfw(4) node is not passed though the firewall again. Other
Hi,
I've read in the release notes that ipfw and dummynet have been improved.
I've wonder if with 8.1 will it be possible to bridge a VLAN Trunk and
filter VLAN tagged frames (actually, send packets to a dummynet queue
for traffic shapping).
I've tried this with 8.0 but seems like ipfw does
Re: freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 320, Issue 18, Message: 7
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:56:04 +0200 Matias matiassu...@gmail.com wrote:
I've read in the release notes that ipfw and dummynet have been improved.
I've wonder if with 8.1 will it be possible to bridge a VLAN Trunk and
filter VLAN
-bridging.html)
says The bridge can be used as a traffic shaper with altq(4) or
dummynet(4).
So what am I doing wrong? What else do I need to do to limit the
bandwidth over a bridge?
Thanks,
Dan
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http
I'm trying to use Dummynet+IPFW and bridging to make a packet shaper
that runs across multiple VLANs. So my intended set up is:
[users]-[Aggregate Switch]=[FreeBSD]=[Upstream Switch (with IP
interfaces for each vlan)]-The World
where - is a single VLAN, and = is a tagged dot1q trunk. The aim
Howard Jones wrote:
I'm trying to use Dummynet+IPFW and bridging to make a packet shaper
that runs across multiple VLANs. So my intended set up is:
[users]-[Aggregate Switch]=[FreeBSD]=[Upstream Switch (with IP
interfaces for each vlan)]-The World
where - is a single VLAN
Здравствуйте, Ian.
May be this will be usefull for you
#1. ping -D -S 10.10.16.16 -s 1472 -i 0.01 10.0.16.1
#2. ping -S 10.10.16.17 10.0.16.1
### --- ### --- ### --- ### --- ### --- ### ---
# 111
### --- ### --- ### ---
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, KES wrote:
, Ian.
May be this will be usefull for you
Yes, but I need to read it more times :) Nicely answers the question
about stats per flow/queue anyway, not too hard to parse for logging.
#1. ping -D -S 10.10.16.16 -s 1472 -i 0.01 10.0.16.1
#2.
this parameter in queue and remove
DEPRECATED (I think so) 'pipe' opts from queue. In any case this is
black box how pipe is coupled with queue. This is unclear section in
man.
Also I notice next BUG:
There are two modes of dummynet operation: normal and fast. Normal mode
tries to emulate
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Sebastian Mellmann wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:10:09 +0100 (CET)
So far I've got those rules:
in_if=em0
out_if=em1
management_if=em2
in_ip=100.100.100.1
out_ip=200.200.200.1
management_ip=172.16.0.201
Ian Smith wrote:
That's a very good ipfw tutorial, given parts of it are a bit outdated
(FreeBSD 4.x) but it covers a lot of useful background. I just skimmed
lots of it now but nothing I read jarred, unlike the Handbook section.
If I choose the default (50 packets) it means that it takes
Здравствуйте, Sebastian.
Вы писали 26 января 2009 г., 12:16:18:
SM Ian Smith wrote:
SM On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:10:09 +0100 (CET)
So far I've got those rules:
in_if=em0
out_if=em1
management_if=em2
in_ip=100.100.100.1
out_ip=200.200.200.1
management_ip=172.16.0.201
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Sebastian Mellmann wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
[..]
00060: 192.000 Kbit/s0 ms 30 KB 1 queues (1 buckets) droptail
0 tcp 192.168.0.64/1032207.46.106.36/1863 1847947 563209421 0
0 141
00070: 3.072 Mbit/s0 ms 40 KB 1 queues (1 buckets) droptail
Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:10:09 +0100 (CET)
So far I've got those rules:
in_if=em0
out_if=em1
management_if=em2
in_ip=100.100.100.1
out_ip=200.200.200.1
management_ip=172.16.0.201
client1_subnet=192.168.5.0/26
client2_subnet=192.168.6.0/26
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:10:09 +0100 (CET)
Sebastian Mellmann sebastian.mellm...@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de wrote:
I'm using FreeBSD 7.0 with IPFW DUMMYNET enabled.
I've got a problem with creating a ruleset which allows me to limit the
overall bandwidth of a link and afterwards pass
Hi!
I'm using FreeBSD 7.0 with IPFW DUMMYNET enabled.
I've got a problem with creating a ruleset which allows me to limit the
overall bandwidth of a link and afterwards pass the packets to another
pipe for processing.
So far I've got those rules:
in_if=em0
out_if=em1
management_if=em2
in_ip
On 16 Sep 2008, at 14:38 , Nikola Kne?evi? wrote:
I'm running FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE with custom kernel on my box, and
when I did:
kldload dummynet kldload ipfw
the machine just hanged - I couldn't access it over ssh, and
current sessions were blocked.
This happens also with GENERIC. I
I have been using PF for several years now and used IPFW previous to
PF that I've grown more and more fond of. I now need to manage
bidirectional traffic I have used Dummynet before to do similar
things but it is my understanding that Altq can only manage outgoing
traffic.
My questions
I have been using PF for several years now and used IPFW previous to
PF that I've grown more and more fond of. I now need to manage
bidirectional traffic I have used Dummynet before to do similar
things but it is my understanding that Altq can only manage outgoing
traffic although I find
Edwin L. Culp wrote:
I have been using PF for several years now and used IPFW previous to PF
that I've grown more and more fond of. I now need to manage
bidirectional traffic I have used Dummynet before to do similar things
but it is my understanding that Altq can only manage outgoing traffic
It's been a long time since I have tried to get dummynet working. I have a
FreeBSD 7.0 box ready to go. Do I still need to recompile the kernel and
all that stuff or is there any easier way to do this now?
--
Ray Seals
-
Office: 314-594-0150 (St. Louis
Ray Seals wrote:
It's been a long time since I have tried to get dummynet working. I have a
FreeBSD 7.0 box ready to go. Do I still need to recompile the kernel and
all that stuff or is there any easier way to do this now?
I tend to use pf/altq but dummynet and ipfw seem to exist as modules
Vince Hoffman wrote:
Ray Seals wrote:
It's been a long time since I have tried to get dummynet working. I
have a
FreeBSD 7.0 box ready to go. Do I still need to recompile the kernel and
all that stuff or is there any easier way to do this now?
I tend to use pf/altq but dummynet and ipfw
all from any to any via vr1
add 00640 allow all from 192.168.1.30 to any
add 00641 allow all from any to 192.168.1.30
I then add the following dummynet rules before these. The LAN continues
to work (queueing is only applied to the vr1 WAN interface), the WAN
continues to work from the bridge
Is it normal to have +10msec ping times when pinging through dummynet (ipfw
pipes)? If yes, why? If not, WTF?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail
Is it normal to have +10msec ping times when pinging through dummynet (ipfw
depends how exactly it's configured
pipes)? If yes, why? If not, WTF?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd
On Aug 31, 2007, at 6:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it normal to have +10msec ping times when pinging through
dummynet (ipfw pipes)? If yes, why? If not, WTF?
If your HZ is 100, then, yes, it's common for the packets to be
delayed by 10+ msec. Set HZ to 1000 or higher and you'll have
I'd like to limit him to 384Kbit/sec.Can someone help me get
bandwidth limiting working? I've tried all the examples I could find
via google but none of them work. My roomate is frequently uploading
stuff to his office, and when he does, it completely saturates our
outbound link and makes
On 06/02/07, Justin Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little or no
impact at all. One point where we have different results is with
ADAPTIVE_GIANT, I actually noticed a drop of about 50kpps thruput when
disabling it.
Hmm I am
At 08:03 AM 2/6/2007, Chris wrote:
On 06/02/07, Justin Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little or no
impact at all. One point where we have different results is with
ADAPTIVE_GIANT, I actually noticed a drop of about 50kpps thruput
traffic the machine will fall over.
Inbound floods appear to cause ALL inbound traffic to lag horrifically
(while rate limiting/piping), which inherently causes a lot of outbound
loss due to broken TCP. Now, I'm not sure if this is something to do
with dummynet being horribly inefficient
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:03:41 -0800, in sentex.lists.freebsd.questions
you wrote:
I suppose my concerns are two-fold. Why is 6.x collapsing under traffic
that 4.11 could easily block and run merrily along with, and is there a
queueing mechanism in place that doesn't tie up the box so much on
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little or no
impact at all. One point where we have different results is with
ADAPTIVE_GIANT, I actually noticed a drop of about 50kpps thruput when
disabling it.
Mike Tancsa wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:03:41 -0800, in
At 09:53 PM 2/5/2007, Justin Robertson wrote:
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little
or no impact at all.
Are you sure you had kern.polling.idle_poll=1 enabled ? It makes a
big difference in RELENG_6 with it on or off in my tests.
---Mike
Hey all,
In dummynet, what's an appropriate queue size for a 50 Megabit pipe?
And is there a general rule-of-thumb or calcluation I should be doing
(i.e. limitation size times some number or something?)
-Dan
--
Hitler, Satan, those Hanson kids, anything. Just not the curious
anteater
each is relative to a switch port). This setup works fine.
Each vlan entry has it's own /29 IP address.
That said, what is the proper syntax for adding dummynet rules to this?
For example, to constrain one of those ports to (say) 50 megabits.
I'm using
pipe 440 config bw 50mbit/s
pipe 441
Hello,
I'm trying to override the 10 second limit to a dummynet pipe delay,
and allow it to be unlimited (or at least several minutes).
I found this email in the achives:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2004-March/003370.html
Following the email I modified /usr/src/sbin/ipfw
In the last episode (Dec 27), ryan m said:
Hello,
I'm trying to override the 10 second limit to a dummynet pipe delay,
and allow it to be unlimited (or at least several minutes).
I found this email in the achives:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2004-March/003370.html
In response to Mike Murphree [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Having an issue on a 5.3 system using ipfw and dummynet to create a
bandwidth limited and large latency pipe for a mpeg video stream. If I
pass the packets between the two NICs without routing through a dummynet
pipe, it's fine. If I route
Having an issue on a 5.3 system using ipfw and dummynet to create a
bandwidth limited and large latency pipe for a mpeg video stream. If I
pass the packets between the two NICs without routing through a dummynet
pipe, it's fine. If I route it through a pipe, it's fragmenting each
packet (client
Hello
I want to ask You: when i configure my dummynet router with large delay
time, then can packet loss happen? ,and can you show me how to increase
network buffer size in dummynet router for overcoming it.
---Tuan---
___
freebsd-questions
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 05:00, Sushant Sharma wrote:
Hi all,
I have installed dummynet on a machine-2 which I am using to introduce
delay between the packets that I'll be sending from machine-1 to machine-3.
I am using ping to confirm that ICMP/TCP packets are getting delayed. I
know
Hi all,
I have installed dummynet on a machine-2 which I am using to introduce delay
between the packets that I'll be sending from machine-1 to machine-3.
I am using ping to confirm that ICMP/TCP packets are getting delayed. I know
both UDP/TCP fall under ip, so UDP packets should also be getting
Hi,
I've old problem with dynamic rule dummynet. I've internet cafe and of
couse they could using download accelerator for download large file
from HTTP/FTP server. In this case they use Freshget or something like
that. In /etc/rc.firewall I have rule like:
# Downstream for client
ipcl
Hiya,
Since freebsd-ipfw is dead and mostly for spammers, let me try my luck
here once more ;)
I am trying to prove a point to a customer - that he can save the cost
of expensive routing hardware by just having a FreeBSD box on their LAN.
Unfortunately, this also means that I need to spend days
In response to Odhiambo Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
The scenario:
I am running a FreeBSD 5.x box with IPFilter/IPNAT. The box has two
interfaces at the moment, external interface connected to the hostile
Internet and internal interface connected to a switch for the LAN.
The
Odhiambo Washington wrote:
I need to control bandwidth on the external interface only, not on the
LAN (internal interfaces).
Is this rightful thinking or sheer imagination which is not practical?
If you're happy with IPFilter and need to ensure minimum bandwidth for
some network segment,
* On 20/09/06 11:16 -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
| In response to Odhiambo Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
|
| [snip]
|
| The scenario:
|
| I am running a FreeBSD 5.x box with IPFilter/IPNAT. The box has two
| interfaces at the moment, external interface connected to the hostile
| Internet and
* On 20/09/06 17:16 +0200, Erik Norgaard wrote:
| Odhiambo Washington wrote:
|
| I need to control bandwidth on the external interface only, not on the
| LAN (internal interfaces).
|
| Is this rightful thinking or sheer imagination which is not practical?
|
| If you're happy with IPFilter and
In response to Odhiambo Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* On 20/09/06 11:16 -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
| In response to Odhiambo Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
|
| [snip]
|
| The scenario:
|
| I am running a FreeBSD 5.x box with IPFilter/IPNAT. The box has two
| interfaces at the
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 08:32:53AM -0600, G-der wrote:
I've been setting up ipfw and DUMMYNET to do some traffic shaping on my
network. Right now to test things out I've basicly put everything into two
categories. There's traffic from 10.0.10.10 which is lower priority (this
is a download
I've been setting up ipfw and DUMMYNET to do some traffic shaping on my
network. Right now to test things out I've basicly put everything into two
categories. There's traffic from 10.0.10.10 which is lower priority (this
is a download machine) and then there's everything else.
The biggest
Hi,
I am attempting to set up contended bandwidth of varying levels, using
vlans and dummynet.
I have 3 nics, one for each level of service, and am simply setting the
parent interface of each vlan device to the correct nic for required level.
I was then hoping to limit the whole real nic
I've been reading up on it and best I can tell I'm looking
at 1000ms round trips... at *best*. Most of what I do
I can do on servers at home, but there will be the
occasional ssh, etc.
Supposedly, the round trip should be only 500 ms: the time for the
signal to go from earth to the
looking
at 1000ms round trips... at *best*. Most of what I do
I can do on servers at home, but there will be the
occasional ssh, etc.
I recently setup ipfw/dummynet with a pipe and a 750ms
delay both in and out and it wasn't as bad as I thought
it would be -- at least for ssh/text. Reminds me
reading up on it and best I can tell I'm looking
at 1000ms round trips... at *best*. Most of what I do
I can do on servers at home, but there will be the
occasional ssh, etc.
I recently setup ipfw/dummynet with a pipe and a 750ms
delay both in and out and it wasn't as bad as I thought
it would
on servers at home, but
there will be the occasional ssh, etc.
I recently setup ipfw/dummynet with a pipe and a 750ms delay both in and
out and it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be -- at least for
ssh/text. Reminds me of my days on a 9600 baud modem. heh.
I'm curious though whether
round trips... at *best*. Most of what I do I can do on
servers at home, but there will be the occasional ssh, etc.
I recently setup ipfw/dummynet with a pipe and a 750ms delay both
in and out and it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be -- at
least for ssh/text. Reminds me of my days
I've been looking into using Dummynet for outgoing traffic, and I've found it
hard going because the tutorials and how-to's deal with it in isolation,
without indicating how it would be used in a real firewall. They generally
suggest setting net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass=1, which as I understand
On 23 Jan 2006, at 21:27, Tyler T wrote:
I posted about this earlier but no replies. Since then I wiped my hard
drive and reinstalled FreeBSD 6 from scratch. I still get this error
when trying to make a PicoBSD Dummynet bridge floppy
http://i1.tinypic.com/mhwvux.gif
Should I go ahead
I still get this error
when trying to make a PicoBSD Dummynet bridge floppy
http://i1.tinypic.com/mhwvux.gif
That depends if you rolled your own crunchgen configuration or not.
Are you following a standard document to do this?
Thanks for the reply!! I'm using
http://people.freebsd.org
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 09:24:00AM -0700, Tyler T wrote:
I still get this error
when trying to make a PicoBSD Dummynet bridge floppy
http://i1.tinypic.com/mhwvux.gif
That depends if you rolled your own crunchgen configuration or not.
Are you following a standard document to do
I still get this error
when trying to make a PicoBSD Dummynet bridge floppy
http://i1.tinypic.com/mhwvux.gif
Are you following a standard document to do this?
Thanks for the reply!! I'm using
http://people.freebsd.org/~picobsd/picobsd/doc/how2build.html
That document
I posted about this earlier but no replies. Since then I wiped my hard
drive and reinstalled FreeBSD 6 from scratch. I still get this error
when trying to make a PicoBSD Dummynet bridge floppy
http://i1.tinypic.com/mhwvux.gif
Should I go ahead and submit a bug for it?
Thanks
Hi,
I just did a default installation of FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE. I ran the
PicoBSD script in an attempt to create a DummyNet floppy, but I got
the following error:
http://tinypic.com/kcmjnt.gif
It says I have lots of undefined references such as gctl_getr_handle,
gctl_ro_param, gctl_issue
same bandwith
I want to use ipfw+dummynet. Solutions is to pass traffic that match
an rule to multiple pipe or queue with different weights. But how?
What is the precedence? (need sysctl net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass=0)
If any have an solutions please be explicity. I dont want to be easy
512kbit/s
| |
| |
| |
users share users share
same bandwith same bandwith
I want to use ipfw+dummynet. Solutions is to pass traffic
+dummynet. Solutions is to pass traffic that match
an rule to multiple pipe or queue with different weights. But how?
What is the precedence? (need sysctl net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass=0)
If any have an solutions please be explicity. I dont want to be easy,
but is significant in this case, in wich order
I know about pf+altq. I can use even ipfw+altw. But i'm fun dummynet,
and i want to use'it. :)
My work at moment is:
#download total
$cmd pipe 1 config bw 1000kbits/s
#download agregate (low pri. 300kbits/s agregate)
$cmd pipe 2 config bw 300kbits/s
$cmd queue 2 config weight 1 pipe 1
$cmd
I need help moving from ipfw and dummynet to pf and altq. So far I
have converted most ipfw rules to pf.
Can someone tell me if there is something for altq like this for dummynet
# ipfw add 1 pipe 1 config bw 64Kbit/s queue 10Kbytes mask src-ip 0x
# ipfw add 2 pipe 2 confg bw 128Kbit/s
I need to traffic shape a remote box that runs IPF, and I
have taken the time to learn to use IPFW with dummynet,
and also that I can run IPFW wide open as IPF is the firewall.
The box is 5.4 stable (generic) and I can't get around doing a reboot,
from all the testing I have done. Must reboot
Hi,
I use FreeBSD 4.X using traffic shapper with dummynet, I've some
questions about implementation rule for my box, for example:
I've 4 client computer let's say A, B, C, and D. I've total bandwith 1
Mbps. If client A online and the other offline (B, C, D), client A
should get 100% bandwidht
, but I wouldn't be very optimistic
about what you are trying to do. AFAIK dummynet works through IP packet
queueing. That means that it can do a good job of shaping outgoing traffic,
but the only control it has on incoming traffic is through dropping packets
that have already been received, which
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 09:53 -0400, Timothy Radigan wrote:
Hi all,
I'm new to the entire idea of traffic shaping and I came up with some rules
for my BSD firewall/router/VoIP gateway and I just wanted to make sure that
what I am trying to accomplish is actually going to happen with these
Hi all,
I'm new to the entire idea of traffic shaping and I came up with some rules
for my BSD firewall/router/VoIP gateway and I just wanted to make sure that
what I am trying to accomplish is actually going to happen with these rules
in place. Currently, my broadband connection is a 4Mb down
I don't use dummynet myself, but surely it would be easier to help you
if you described what the actual problem is?
Well, actual problem description:
FreeBSD-5.3 router;
rl0 - internal interface
rl1 - external.
rl1 is connected to ADSL modem from provider;
The link bandwidth is 64kbps
Sergey Lapin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi, all!
Here I have a problem with dummynet. System is FreeBSD-5.3-STABLE month ago.
we have very small bandwidth from LAN.
rl0 is internal interface.
ipfw rukes are (fwcmd=/sbin/ipfw):
${fwcmd} pipe 1 config bw 60Kbit/s
${fwcmd} add 778 pipe
Hi, all!
Here I have a problem with dummynet. System is FreeBSD-5.3-STABLE month ago.
we have very small bandwidth from LAN.
rl0 is internal interface.
ipfw rukes are (fwcmd=/sbin/ipfw):
${fwcmd} pipe 1 config bw 60Kbit/s
${fwcmd} add 778 pipe 1 tcp from any
Hello,
This is the beginning of my script:
ipfw -q flush
ipfw pipe 1 config bw 729kbit/s
ipfw pipe 2 config bw 121kbit/s
ipfw queue 1 config pipe 1 weight 94
ipfw queue 2 config pipe 1 weight 5
ipfw queue 3 config pipe 1 weight 1
ipfw queue 4 config pipe 2 weight 94
ipfw queue 5 config pipe 2
Good Day Guys.
I installed FreeBSD 5.3 and everything worked fine .
i recompiled the kernel included options for
IPDIVERT
IPFIREWALL
IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE
BRIDGE
everything went fine
i did the systcl to load the two network cards as should be
sysctl
Hello,
I'm running FreeBSD 5.3 Stable, installed from an iso on one
of the dutch ftp mirrors. Everything works fine, installation
went as expected. After a while I wanted some simple traffic
shaping, and since the machine I wanted that for isn't the
fastest, I chose to use ipfw with dummynet
Lucas wrote:
[ ... ]
Is there any way I could check if it really compiled? I vaguely
remember something containing the word dummynet flashing by
while compiling.
If you check `dmesg`, you should see a line like:
DUMMYNET initialized (011031)
However, your problem sounds like your kernel and world
Lucas wrote:
[ ... ]
Is there any way I could check if it really compiled? I vaguely
remember something containing the word dummynet flashing by
while compiling.
If you check `dmesg`, you should see a line like:
DUMMYNET initialized (011031)
However, your problem sounds like your kernel
(question at the end)
I have a server that sits on a medium speed link (10Mbit, full duplex) that
under certain network loads starts to show what looks like TCP-ACK delay
problems. At full upstream saturation the downstream speed is reduced.
I modded the firewall rules to prioritize TCP-ACKs
monitor
http traffic. Its up to you.
Assuming the conservative, how does the dummynet config have to be setup
fpor thsi to occur?...or can it be configured for both inbound and
^ I don't understand the question.
outbound? Right now, I have the below config and since I have not put
yeah, I also didn't notice his return
address at first. That already explains much :).
I think I actually sorta, kinda got it working.
I'll do some tests and update if my observations
are valid.
Drew Tomlinson wrote:
On 10/28/2004 9:30 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why don't you
yeah, I also didn't notice his return
address at first. That already explains much :).
I think I actually sorta, kinda got it working.
I'll do some tests and update if my observations
are valid.
Drew Tomlinson wrote:
On 10/28/2004 9:30 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why don't you guys stop torturing
s yeah, I also didn't notice his return
s address at first. That already explains much :).
s I think I actually sorta, kinda got it working.
s I'll do some tests and update if my observations
s are valid.
-
if your tests show positive results I
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:18:19 -0400 (EDT), James Skinner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you look further, you'll the wink (I was ribbing you). Similar to
another one of threads. Obviously, you can dish it out, but can't take
it. I have seen your past replys; you offer nothing but abuse. Do you
I know it is about time for this thread to die, but I couldn't resist
responding this once.
On 10/28/2004 at 18:13 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with some of that, but unless the person has the money to
spend,
then using dummnynet is acceptable. Not everyone can drop 10+ grand on
a
nokia
In a message dated 10/29/04 8:26:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The boss pays his sysadmin every week, no matter what. The Boss
expects that the systems will runs with the least overall cost.
Sometimes that means buying something, sometimes that means configuring
what is
The problem with dummynet is that once you do all the work and figure
it all
out,
its still only marginally functional compared to something relatively
inexpensive.
So instead of buying the $3500 box that is everything you need, you've
spend
$800
on hardware, $2000 worth
On 10/28/2004 9:30 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why don't you guys stop torturing yourself and wasting $1000s worth
of your time and get yourself some real bandwidth management
software? Its cheaper in the long run.
FWIW, I've taken this suggestion with a grain of salt, based upon the
general
Why don't you guys stop torturing yourself and wasting $1000s worth
of your time and get yourself some real bandwidth management
software? Its cheaper in the long run.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Funny, I thought that's what Dummynet did. It seems that you wouldn't
want to steer a user into a horribly overpriced closed-source
rate-limiting solutuion when it's available for free in the OS.
BTW: Nice email addr
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
