We also use traffic-shape, which is what I suggested originally ;)
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:20:32AM -0500, Alex wrote:
>
> Why not just use traffic-shape? That simulates a nice full pipe and is
> TCP-friendly.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Chris Roberts wrote:
>
> > On flows of this size, I can see CAR producing better results. However
> > since it does no smoothing of flows, it produces nasty TCP performance,
> > as when customers burst, they will find their TCP sessions exceed their
> > excess burst and drop packets, causing TCP to go into slow restart.
> > In our applications (2meg LL shaped to 1meg and such) this is
> > not so useful. We have also evaluated, and are using the Packeteer,
> > which is I guess what you meant?
-- |=========----- -------=======| Unix, BASIC, C, PASCAL, APL, ADA, | Chris Roberts (chrisr@pavilion.net)| and PROFANITY spoken here. |=======------- -----=========| T: 0845 333 5000 F: 0845 333 5001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:22 EDT