Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Oct 1998 14:40:15 +1300 | From | Chris Wedgwood <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |