Limiting bandwith of shared connection!

Is there an easy way of limiting computers on a private network to only use
a specific amount of bandwidth. i.e. 25% share across the network and
leaving the rest for the main computer to use.

I'm using Xp pro!

TIA

Damian

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:41:40 +0100, "Damo" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Is there an easy way of limiting computers on a private network to only use
>a specific amount of bandwidth. i.e. 25% share across the network and
>leaving the rest for the main computer to use.
>
Not without an expensive hardware router that can do that function.

Andrew.

I should have mentioned that the only bandwidth I'm worried about
restricting is the ADSL connection! not the internal network bandwidth.
The connection to ADSL is via one pc's shared internet connection not a
router.


"Damo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bh82vc$c65$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Is there an easy way of limiting computers on a private network to only
use
> a specific amount of bandwidth. i.e. 25% share across the network and
> leaving the rest for the main computer to use.
>
> I'm using Xp pro!
>
> TIA
>
> Damian
>
>

<aep@nospam writeme.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:41:40 +0100, "Damo" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> Not without an expensive hardware router that can do that function.
>
I believe some of the Linux router/firewall type distros can do this too,
but I've never tried it myself.

--
</Slugsie>

Damo wrote:

> Is there an easy way of limiting computers on a private network to only use
> a specific amount of bandwidth. i.e. 25% share across the network and
> leaving the rest for the main computer to use.


Not easy, no.

If the router has the capability, you might be able to configure it to do this,

but the average cheapo Ethernet<->ASL router won't have that functionality.



>
> I'm using Xp pro!
>
> TIA
>
> Damian
>
>
>

Kris wrote:

> Damo writes:
>
>
>>Is there an easy way of limiting computers on a private network to only use
>>a specific amount of bandwidth. i.e. 25% share across the network and
>>leaving the rest for the main computer to use.
>>
>
> www.bandwidthcontroller.com to use on a gateway PC.
> www.netlimiter.com to control speed when installed on an individual PC.
>

OK, if that stuff does what it says on the tin, maybe. Or will it limit
the speed on all networks?

In message <bh86do$fub$(E-Mail Removed)>, Damo <(E-Mail Removed)>
writes
>Cheers Kris, bandwidthcontroller looks just the thing I'm after.
>
>Thank you all for your help.
>
>"Kris" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> Damo writes:
>>
>> > Is there an easy way of limiting computers on a private network to only
>use
>> > a specific amount of bandwidth. i.e. 25% share across the network and
>> > leaving the rest for the main computer to use.
>>
>> www.bandwidthcontroller.com to use on a gateway PC.
>> www.netlimiter.com to control speed when installed on an individual PC.
>
>
Does anyone know of a router which would do this without using a PC.

CHRIS
--
Chris Wilkinson - Dubna Systems
Due to virus bombardment please note that any email containing a virus will be
automatically deleted and therefore not read.

Slugsie wrote:

> <aep@nospam writeme.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:41:40 +0100, "Damo" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Not without an expensive hardware router that can do that function.
> >
> I believe some of the Linux router/firewall type distros can do this too,
> but I've never tried it myself.
>

I don't think the firewall distros do it (though I haven't looked recently)
as you need to use recent kernels/patches & they go for security/stability.


http://digriz.org.uk/jdg-qos-script/

looks usefull

Andy.

Alexander Clouter wrote:

> Indeed it is, I wrote it

Looks good - from what little reading I've done on the subject, I get the
impression there a few ways to do it.

I found the ones you reference - have you seen the bandwidth arbiter for
the delay acks method.

http://www.apconnections.net/

> I would appreicate feedback on it though.

I'll give it a try - not that I've got much of a network.

I tried a while ago to patch my iptables 1.28 with the IMQ POM - but it was
for the CVS & didn't work by just changing dir names.

Do the normal patches against the older iptables just work with 1.28?

>
> The kernel patches apply cleanly across all the kernels I have tried
> (tested
> on 2.4.18 to 2.4.21). I am always tweaking the script, but as it uses
> IPTables to classify the traffic it makes the script much easier to
> customise for your own personal preference.
>
> Bear in mind that the script's approach to the problem is to fair share
> and prioritize everyones traffic equally; rather than 25% to this person
> 4% to
> this and 14% to that, etc. This works very well in home environments and
> I would imagine offices where a group of machines need to be equally
> throttled.

When you say on your site -

This script is really only suitable for situations where you want to fairly
share and prioritize the traffic for a group of machines on a per IP basis

Do you mean it will give me 50% of the down bandwidth if I had one tcp
connection, while another user had 10 on the go - assuming they are the
same sort of traffic.

Andy.

In article <s63011-(E-Mail Removed)>, Andy Furniss wrote:
>
>> I would appreicate feedback on it though.
>
> I'll give it a try - not that I've got much of a network.
>
> I tried a while ago to patch my iptables 1.28 with the IMQ POM - but it was
> for the CVS & didn't work by just changing dir names.
>
> Do the normal patches against the older iptables just work with 1.28?
>
I have been running the 2.4.18 (old) patches with the 2.4.21 kernel until
today with no problem and on lots of other peoples machine. However today I
have updated the script and also changed everything to use the new 2.4.21
patches from the IMQ website; so you might as well use the new stuff

> This script is really only suitable for situations where you want to fairly
> share and prioritize the traffic for a group of machines on a per IP basis
>
> Do you mean it will give me 50% of the down bandwidth if I had one tcp
> connection, while another user had 10 on the go - assuming they are the
> same sort of traffic.
>

With all the other QoS scripts I have seen out there they fair share on a
'flow' (TCP/UDP/whatever, per connection) basis, which is okay as on average
everyone over a long period of time will use a similar number of 'flows'.
However in what if one computer has ten 'flows' (say ten ftp download
connections) and another person has only two, then the bandwidth is split 5:1
which obviously is quite unfair. This can be gotten round in a kludgy way
with a script that makes a tree of buckets for each machine, my QoS script
uses the ESFQ system though which fair shares on a per 'ip' basis instead.
Therefore in the above example still only 1:1 sharing occurs, which is great.
The disadvantage is that you need a kernel patch and a 'tc' patch, however
its not the end of the world and well worth the effort.

I hope this clears things up?

You might want to be lazy and just get my 'jdg' kernel patch
(http://digriz.org.uk/jdg-kernel-patch/)

Regards

Alex

--
Alexander Clouter <(E-Mail Removed)>
MetroNet Support http://www.metronet.co.uk/support/