On 06.06.2014 17:31, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 00:10:26 +0800, bycn82 wrote:
Guys, I do understand that this is an important discussion about useful
ipfw feature,
but can you please stop invading this (totally unrelated) topic and
return to original one?
Thank you.
Hi Bill,
> Sorry for waste you time to explain it again, I will read the code first.
Especially the code provided in free tutorials by your busy professor ..
> And the latest patch of `PPS` should be OK, I checked the logic carefully
this time. I sent it out last weekend.
>
> logic as below, PPS actually will be fulfilled using `PPT`,(N packets per M
ticks).
I think a few people have pointed out likely problems with 'packets per
tick(s)', and that people tend to prefer packets per second as a more
natural and familiar concept. I can see use cases for that, especially
when applied by easily updateable (and soon, saveable) tables.
Remember that HZ may be set at boot time, and will at times by people
experimenting with, as one example, dummynet latency versus cpu use, so
rulesets specifying packets per tick would need also to be modified to
match, which won't happen. Packets per second is independent of HZ and
far easier to comprehend. See inetd(8) for a typical PPM example, while
PPS makes more sense for a firewall.
I wonder if something like Bresenham's Linedrawing Algorithm might help?
cheers, Ian
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
