[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.029 / U:11.788 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site