Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:48:02 -0700 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: bandwidth for bkbits.net (good news) |
| |
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 06:33:50PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:22:43AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 05:44:50PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > It doesn't work when you dont control incoming. As a simple extreme > > > > example if I pingflood you from a fast site then no amount of shaping > > > > your end of the link will help, it has to be shaped at the ISP end. > > > > > > sure, that's why I said it won't work with synflood. > > > > Someone syncs w/ bkbits every 19 seconds 24x7. We also run our web server > > 1 syn every 19 seconds is nothing.
A sync != one connection. And that doesn't include the auto backup that we do to another server, doesn't include all the HTTP traffic, doesn't include our web site traffic.
> > You guys who are saying it can work are thinking (a) one connection of > > long duration (think about all the web hits on bkbits.net, those are all > > it doesn't need to be long duration, just longer than a syn or a ping. > If it goes in established for a few packets is should be enough to > throttle it just fine.
You are welcome to *demonstrate* something that works but telling me that it works when we've tried what you said to try isn't very compelling. I know this doesn't work from both theory and practice. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |