Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> well, Steve, to be honest, I was offended by the responses you were giving
> to everyone's attempts to help you. Maybe its a simple misunderstanding,
> but here's my take on it. I put up the first response telling you "google
> is your friend" and pointing you to a debian admin article on traffic
> shaping.
Which is not what Netlimiter does and something I described in my initial
post. Traffic shaping allows for queue jumping of some packets over others
and the limitation of other packets based on protocol data which has little to
no bearing at the application level.
Netlimiter, on the other hand, limits bandwidth based on the application,
not on information at the network layer. IE, if an application uses random
ports for communication traffic shaper is next to useless because, at the
basic level (something I have configured, thank you) it deals in ports;
*static* ports.
> This is a subject that I don't know much about, but I'm interested
> to learn so I did a little research. a google of traffic shaping and debian
> came up with tons of responses that all looked useful.
But did you start off with a search on "Netlimiter" to see what *it* did
first? Because you know little of traffic shaping and because you wanted to
look into traffic shaping means that *I* knew little and that *I* was looking
for traffic shaping. I formed my question with specifics.
> Then you went on to question whether *I* had done adequate
> research into *YOUR* problem. This was followed up with repeated trashing
> of those tools that are out there.
No, I asked if you had done a search on what I was asking about? Here it
is with flippant remarks and misaddressed answers and I still doubt you've
opened up a browser, hit Google and searched on "Netlimiter".
> Sorry man, but that just rubbed me the wrong way. Your responses to others
> have been in the same vein. I'm sorry if we haven't been of any help to
> you. We tried. We made some suggestions on where to look and tried to
> provide a solution that we thought fit your requirements.
No, only one response came close. None of them fit my requirements which
were stated plainly up front. Is there a tool like Netlimiter for Linux?
Answer, no.
> You mentioned
> apache, so one respondent put up an apache solution. Doesn't work for you
> and that's fine, but its not his responsibility to go find *YOUR* ultimate
> solution, but only to provide what help he deems appropriate.
But there's the problem. Look what I wrote again...
'I want to be able to tell Apache (and other non-self-limiting programs) "you
get this much, NO MORE!"'
Key phrase *and /other/ non-self-limiting programs*. So tossing out a
solution for Apache, which was just an example of a larger problem, didn't
address much, did it?
> FTR, I'm just laying it out as I see it. I'm human and fallible and do not
> mean to offend. I'm trying to explain my interpretation of what is likely a
> big communication breakdown.
Trust me, it's a common breakdown. I mean, here's another good example.
How many people pointed me to traffic shaping? Lots. Did any of them read
the first line of the second paragraph?
"Yeah, I could do it with iptables and a whole slew of deep magic. "
Hm, tell me again what traffic shaping is partially configured in? Right,
iptables. *sigh*
Pardon me for being frustrated when people offer suggestions that I have
looked at and found wanting and indicated I looked at them and found them
wanting in my initial post. Pardon me for being frustrated when I ask about a
large scale problem and someone gives me an answer for one small piece which
doesn't help elsewhere. Pardon me for presuming people should, you know, read
the message first before replying?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature