On 9/16/2009 11:11 AM, Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:01:04 +, Andrew Gideon wrote:
It can also potentially be extended in other directions. For one crazy
example, the utility (or some other utility that modifies the first
utilities configuration) could listen on a port for me
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:01:04 +, Andrew Gideon wrote:
> It can also potentially be extended in other directions. For one crazy
> example, the utility (or some other utility that modifies the first
> utilities configuration) could listen on a port for messages from -
> presumably - the receivin
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:11:03 -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> run rsync till a given time deadline, killing off the original program
> instance and then restart with a new bandwidth limit. I would probably
> use a small program invoking rsync and then sending a signal when "it's
> Time" then sta
On 15.09.2009 12:11, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> On 9/14/2009 3:55 PM, Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
>>> If there is one or more bottleneck link in the network (places where
>>> traffic feeds from one or more links with aggregate larger capacity
>>> into a link with smaller capacity) then it makes sense th
On 9/14/2009 3:55 PM, Andrew Gideon wrote:
If there is one or more bottleneck link in the network (places where
traffic feeds from one or more links with aggregate larger capacity
into a link with smaller capacity) then it makes sense that this work
has to be done on the router that is on the se
> I would think priority queuing is
> better than shaping in this case.
I'm afraid I'm not following you here. As I've learned it, priority
queuing is one of several tools available to achieve shaping.
No?
[...]
>
> If there is one or more bottleneck link in the network (places where
> traf
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:25:55 + (UTC), Andrew Gideon wrote:
> If a router is involved, it can do egress shaping on the local side.
> That's best. If a router is not involved, then the server must do
I don't think that's best at all. I would think priority queuing is
better than shaping in t
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:09:41 -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> On 9/14/2009 9:25 AM, Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
>> So control is most effective at the sending rsync, which suggests that
>> bwlimit is a good approach. But the most information is available at
>> the receiving router, suggesting that s
On 9/14/2009 9:25 AM, Andrew Gideon wrote:
So control is most effective at the sending rsync, which suggests that
bwlimit is a good approach. But the most information is available at the
receiving router, suggesting that shaping at the router is also a good
approach.
Interesting.
Exactly wha
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:45:02 +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:
> Unless you do it properly, and do your QoS on routers in the middle.
This is true. But there are considerations. I became curious about
this, so I did some reading to refresh my memory.
First, keep in mind that we're talking about contr
On 14/09/2009, at 2:22 PM, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
Unfortunately, the QOS solution only works for the platform you
develop it for. On the other hand, the bwlimit solution works for
almost every platform but doesn't behave well if there are multiple
rsync clients talking to one hopes. The
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:22:34 -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> It is all within one tool and there's no way you can hurt or damage
> anyone else through its use.
It is also within one instance of the tool. What if two of your remote
users rsync at the same time? Twenty? What if someone has a
On 9/13/2009 9:20 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 21:02 -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
I am using rsync to back up across a VPN. Unfortunately, every so often the
home office miscreants drop a big block of data into the backup and that
particular backup cycle takes many hours.
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:20:01 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> How about the suggestions you were given on the rsnapshot list?
Assuming that you're using Linux somewhere in the mix, its ability to put
different network traffic into different pools for purposes of rate
management is (1) admittedly
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 21:02 -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> I am using rsync to back up across a VPN. Unfortunately, every so often the
> home office miscreants drop a big block of data into the backup and that
> particular backup cycle takes many hours. These same people also complain
> whe
15 matches
Mail list logo
