lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: network nicety
On Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 06:41:31PM -0400, David Feuer wrote:

> If this has been rejected or implemented before, please let me
> know, but....

> I am often frustrated that when I am running a network-intensive
> long-term process (generally a big FTP download), I get a big
> slowdown of burst-oriented interactive use (email, web browser,
> etc.). This is a particular problem since I am using a PPP
> connection. I have a couple ideas for solving this problem, and
> similar ones.

There is also a wealth of information and code available on the 'net
about this.

> First, I think that programs should have a netnice value (nnice?),
> along with a nice value. When transmitting packets, lower niceness
> processes (or threads.....) get higher priority. So if I were
> running a significant-use ftp server, I could set the netnice for
> my ftp server to 13, allowing other processes on my machine to have
> better responsiveness.

This is indeed possible - linux can and does prioritize packets when
sending them.

Generally though, lack of responsiveness for many people is an issue
when they are on the receiver side.

> When I am doing a big FTP download, web browsing often slows to a
> crawl. I was thinking that there might be some way to combine
> kernel-level changes with a modification of the pppd client+server
> to support some prioritization of the PPP link.

You need your ISP to support QoS - most don't yet.

> I don't really know how this would work.

It works great - I use it here. But since I am my ISP, I have some
flexibility most people don't.

> I think that some of these ideas (probably with huge modifications)
> could help improve Linux network performance.

Linux has all this and more... you just need the rest of the 'net to
catch up.

> Remove "NOSPAM" to reply.

Spam blockers suck... it rude to use them and they aren't necessary.
Anyhow, I don't see a NOSPAM is your headers, only the body - and
most email address are harvested from headers only, because it yields
better results.

Oh, and things like NOSPAM are trivial to work around - I've written
a perl script which connects to NNTP servers, uses XOVER and a few
simple rules to harvest _many_ _many_ email address, including many
with spam blockers.




-cw

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site