4 ms·
A simpler way than the "Super complex UI, lots of fiddly magic numbers, and no documentation. You're sort of doomed." method in the article: wondershaper. It's
by m_eiman 16y ago
A simpler way than the "Super complex UI, lots of fiddly magic numbers, and no documentation. You're sort of doomed." method in the article: wondershaper. It's in Ubuntu and as easy as wondershaper eth1 9500 9500 (for a symmetrical 10Mbps connection). You'll probably be able to fine tune better settings manually, but this is a good start.
- viraptor 16y agoI think you're missing the same thing the author missed in the Jim Gettys' article. You cannot fix the situation easily in every situation if the ISP is not behaving correctly, contrary to what the post says. He was able to fix this specific scenario, because he was the bottleneck (he was generating more traffic / accepting promise of delivery) in this case. The original series of articles (I really recommend reading them - they've got a great deal of tech details) dealt with a bit different situation - the person was not even saturating the link. Problems started appearing because of the shaping on a link which actually should support the traffic - he could introduce fake bottleneck, which was not the point really, because he would be wasting some possible bandwidth. The problem there was mostly out of his control, although could be mitigated to some extent by local tuning (http://gettys.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/mitigations-and-solutions-of-bufferbloat-in-home-routers-and-operating-systems/ http://gettys.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/mitigations-and-solut...). I didn't want to say your solution won't work. But it's not going to solve all problems - it will work if you / your direct link is the bottleneck.
- m_eiman 16y agoSure, but at least then I've done what I can on my end and can blame any remaining problems on my ISP with a bit more confidence :)