Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:28:49 -0400 (EDT) | From | Feuer <> | Subject | Re: network nicety |
| |
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Bob Lanning wrote:
> This is in IPv6. Traffic prioritization. There are boxes that sit in the > middle of you stream and mess with TCP streams to prioritize traffic. > Packeteer is one. > > It is very hard to implement something like this. The data channel for ftp > has no real identification in it. The best way of doing this is in the > application. >
The server sits on a well-known port right/?
> ---- As written by David Feuer: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. Similarly, when using an ftp client to upload something > > big, I could set the netnice to 17 and keep on browsing. The best thing > > is that the performance of those big network transfers would not really > > go down much. They would just interfere less. > > > > This is only half a solution. It pretty much only solves sender-side > > problems. For home systems such as mine the big issue is receiver-end. > > 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. I don't really know how > > this would work. It would be nice if I could set the nicety of a > > receiving program (ftp client, etc.), and have that tell the PPP server > > on the other end that it should make packets destined to ports owned by > > this process a low priority. One possibility would be to buffer them > > until there was network time (or their brief turn came around), and > > dropping their packets when the buffer is full. > > > > I think that some of these ideas (probably with huge modifications) > > could help improve Linux network performance. > > -- > > > > Remove "NOSPAM" to reply. > > ______________________________ > > / David Feuer \ > > | dfeuer@NOSPAMbinx.mbhs.edu | > > | feuer@NOSPAMhis.com | > > | daf@morseNOSPAM.usno.navy.mil| > > \ david@NOSPAMfeuer.his.com / > > ----------------------------- > > > > - > > 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/ > > > > > -- > Robert Hajime Lanning Navigation Technologies > Unix Systems Administrator 740 E. Arques Ave. > (408) 617-5059 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 > lanning@fhda.edu USA > lanning@kewltech.com lanning@navtech.com > > - > 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/ >
- 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/
| |