Weighting VS Periority ...

[moro666]

What is better, using weighting or using Periority to classify the connection ?

first i use weiting method, yes it do it's job, But it was hard to determain its' value on each rule, u need to do it exactly

But when I use Periority Method, it was easy to set it, & I think it was more useful for every rule.
whith it i have full line utilization, important connection have its' need, limiting less important ones,
& when it closed, non-important connections began to gain un-used bandwidth.

importnat note:
- when a rule limiting a not important connection/clinet , whith low periority, like 1 or 2, u shoud give this rule a low guarantied speed, as 5 kbyte/s

if you don't so, when important connection/client starts to connect, & eat more bandwidth, & the line reach to it's MAX
the low periorty rules will limite speeds almost near zero kb/s & may drop this client totaly & stop his traffic, tell the important rule ends it's job.

5 kb/s is best than nothing in beak times..

determaining the guarantied speed is depending on your max line speed.
200 kb/s ------------ 15 is ok
65 kbit/s ------------- 5 or less

& how many clients usually have on beak times
you only who can know what speed is needed for every client , & what ur max line speed can handle ?
--------------------------

[admin]

What is better, using weighting or using Periority to classify the connection ?

first i use weiting method, yes it do it's job, But it was hard to determain its' value on each rule, u need to do it exactly

Moro, if you are using weighting then ensure you are using the latest version as we renamed that field a year or two ago to Scale Factor. Just in case you are using a old version because there have been many fixes since then.

But when I use Periority Method, it was easy to set it, & I think it was more useful for every rule.
whith it i have full line utilization, important connection have its' need, limiting less important ones,
& when it closed, non-important connections began to gain un-used bandwidth.

Weighting & Prioritization are fairly different operations so it is hard to compare them.

At the most basic level, weighting is used to allocate a percentage of line speed to a user. In practice, it is most often used to given an equal percentage to each user.

Prioritization is used to give full speed to a user (or protocol). It's real-world usage is to prevent an application from being swamped by other network traffic like file sharing. Prioritization is commonly used by applications such as VoIP and online games.

importnat note:
- when a rule limiting a not important connection/clinet , whith low periority, like 1 or 2, u shoud give this rule a low guarantied speed, as 5 kbyte/s

if you don't so, when important connection/client starts to connect, & eat more bandwidth, & the line reach to it's MAX
the low periorty rules will limite speeds almost near zero kb/s & may drop this client totaly & stop his traffic, tell the important rule ends it's job.

I am under the impression that guaranteed speeds take precedence over priority levels. So that even if a traffic stream is classified with a priority level of 1 and a guaranteed speed of 5 K/s, it will be given 5 K/s no matter what happens. Let me know if you can set up a simple test that shows otherwise and I will try to reproduce it.

you only who can know what speed is needed for every client , & what ur max line speed can handle ?

I'm not sure what you mean here, can you explain more?

[moro666]

I use latest version now, & before we start these discussion, i was uing v2.00 .

& yes I knew [Weighting] is changed to [Scalefactor] , but it presented in main program interface as [Weighting Ratio]

give a look to my Bandwidth C., is there anything wrong with it ? [Open this pic. in a new page, it's croped Here!]

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1130/000ii4.jpg

-My LAN range = 10.0.42.0/255
- My WAN IP = 84.36.34.205
- My Server Nme= SPEED
[[ every connection opend by a client , appear at traffic monitor as a connection through LAN
& the same connection passing throgh WAN, But my server is the local endpoint

is this mean , i have to limit this connection with 2 rules, 1 for LAN, & other for WAN ?
---------------------------------

I am under the impression that guaranteed speeds take precedence over priority levels. So that even if a traffic stream is classified with a priority level of 1 and a guaranteed speed of 5 K/s, it will be given 5 K/s no matter what happens. Let me know if you can set up a simple test that shows otherwise and I will try to reproduce it.

We both agree on this, & there's no problems with periority, I just want to know about giving a guarantied speed to these Low priority rules is OK ?
Or this may waste bandwidth ?

I want to limit a heavy downloader user at beaktimes, but not kill his connections, that's why i gave him low periority , & small amount of guaranted speed..

is this method ok to do like this scenario ?

-----------------------------

Prioritization is used to give full speed to a user (or protocol). It's real-world usage is to prevent an application from being swamped by other network traffic like file sharing. Prioritization is commonly used by applications such as VoIP and online games.

1- Prioritization is commonly used by applications ------ I use it to prioritize some group of clients, is this ok?

2- to prioritize an application, Like Yahoo messenger Voice & CAM, can this rule work :

* Adapter = LAN
* direction = Both
* SPEED = unlimited
* Piriority = 8 or 9
* Local Point = ANY - with Port= ANY
* Remote Point= ANY - with Port= 5100 [or any ports used By that application]
* Protocol = TCP or UDP [ debending on that Ap.]

this will make action on LAN side, Not WAN side,
SO.. do i have to make the same rule again but Adapter 'll be WAN ??

Or just 1 rule is ok , & for any adapter LAN or WAN?

Thanks..

[admin]

I use latest version now, & before we start these discussion, i was uing v2.00 .

Just to be clear, the latest version is 1.21 . But it appears you using one of the latest versions from that image.

& yes I knew [Weighting] is changed to [Scalefactor] , but it presented in main program interface as [Weighting Ratio]

give a look to my Bandwidth C., is there anything wrong with it ? [Open this pic. in a new page, it's croped Here!]

Thank you for pointing that out. It appears the weighting column didn't get renamed when we changed it. I'll ensure it gets updated for future versions.

-My LAN range = 10.0.42.0/255
- My WAN IP = 84.36.34.205
- My Server Nme= SPEED
[[ every connection opend by a client , appear at traffic monitor as a connection through LAN
& the same connection passing throgh WAN, But my server is the local endpoint

is this mean , i have to limit this connection with 2 rules, 1 for LAN, & other for WAN ?

This is normal. It happens because the server machine is translating the local IP address of each connection (using NAT) . This is why we recommend you create rules using the LAN adapter rather than WAN. That way you can create rules that work for client IP addresses. If you create rules using the WAN adapter then the rule will only see the server address as the local endpoint and won't be able to tell the difference between the different clients (the port changes and that's about it).

... I just want to know about giving a guarantied speed to these Low priority rules is OK ?
Or this may waste bandwidth ?

I want to limit a heavy downloader user at beaktimes, but not kill his connections, that's why i gave him low periority , & small amount of guaranted speed.

It is a good idea and I think you should go ahead and implement it. Prioritization can be very powerful in the way that it gives right-of-way to the prioritized traffic. By setting a minimum level of bandwidth for non-prioritized traffic you can prevent them from being completely overrun by the prioritized traffic.

1- Prioritization is commonly used by applications ------ I use it to prioritize some group of clients, is this ok?

It's fine. Just be careful that you don't prioritize users who may use all of the bandwidth of course.

2- to prioritize an application, Like Yahoo messenger Voice & CAM, can this rule work :

* Adapter = LAN
* direction = Both
* SPEED = unlimited
* Piriority = 8 or 9
* Local Point = ANY - with Port= ANY
* Remote Point= ANY - with Port= 5100 [or any ports used By that application]
* Protocol = TCP or UDP [ debending on that Ap.]

this will make action on LAN side, Not WAN side,
SO.. do i have to make the same rule again but Adapter 'll be WAN ??

That rule is perfect to prioritize the application. You don't need to create a WAN rule as well. The reason is this:

It is not very well documented at the moment, but when you create a LAN rule it works on the WAN traffic. In other words, even though the rule uses the LAN adapter for classification, it processes the traffic according to the internet line usage.

For example, if you have 3 clients downloading, and have a rule that distributes bandwidth evenly (using 'create new queue for each local user), each client is given 33% of the bandwidth. This occurs regardless of whether the rule uses the LAN or WAN adapter. The 'adapter' setting in rule properties is only for classification, it doesn't affect processing.

[moro666]

Thanks Matt.. Now it's clear how bandwidth C. deals with both adapters

but u say somthing that i realy want to be sure of

The 'adapter' setting in rule properties is only for classification, it doesn't affect processing

in adapter setting TAB. we set the speed of Internet line.. Great!
say I have 512/128 kbps DSL line

I should make this setting .. to let bandwidth controller be able to:
1- (( classify traffic ))
2- when BandwidthC. knows the MAX speed.. it can then proccess priority rules ?
3- also can determine or manage [ scale factor ] ?

BUT.. what if my line speed isn't stable ? for bad service or for any other reason ???

The MAX download speed for 512 ADSL line is 55 - 65 Kbyte/s <---- [& this what I put in Internet Line speed sitting]
but it may reduced during a day , Beak times.. it can reach 30 k/s or even 25 k/s MAX ..

then , what Bandwidth controller 'll do for Prioritization & scaling Proccess ?

If it can't handle it.. I'm thinking of Crazy idea [[ dynamic detection of internet speed ]]

[admin]

The MAX download speed for 512 ADSL line is 55 - 65 Kbyte/s <---- [& this what I put in Internet Line speed sitting]
but it may reduced during a day , Beak times.. it can reach 30 k/s or even 25 k/s MAX

For cases where the line speed is not constant you need to choose a lower value for the line speed. If it is dropping by 50% or more as in this case then you need to choose a value that is around 70% of the highest speed.

Alternatively you can process users using speed limit rather than scale factor or priority because it does not rely on the line speed setting.

If it can't handle it.. I'm thinking of Crazy idea [[ dynamic detection of internet speed ]]

We've looked into this a few times over the years but there seems to be no good way of doing it. The best way is to perform a bandwidth test to a web server every 10 minutes or so but it puts a lot of strain on the local internet connection. It would block all clients for 10 or 20 seconds because it needs to test the full width of the line. Hopefully we can come up with a solution in the future.

[moro666]

The best way is to perform a bandwidth test to a web server every 10 minutes or so but it puts a lot of strain on the local internet connection. It would block all clients for 10 or 20 seconds because it needs to test the full width of the line.

Yes.. this is not a perfect solution..
But I notice somthing when Internet Line speed start to decrease. That "Ping" time for eny site start to increase !

for Example..
In good Line speed, when there is No Load, the Ping time to "www.yahoo.com" is about 150 to 300 ms
But when there is Load & the speed start to fall down, Ping time starts to raise, about 600 or 800 or more

thus.. more Ping Time = low speed

SO.. More Ping time (600 & more) [Detected By Bandwidth controller] = Decrease the MAX Line speed
Or.. Less Ping time ( 300 & less ) [Detected By Bandwidth controller] = Increase the MAX line speed
----------------------------------

This solution sounds good , But hase a side effect .. What if the load on internet line due to I use MyFull speed not from Load on Main ISP Gateway ?

I say that. because if I use my full Line speed, this 'll coze the same symptom of Ping time .

then this solution 'll not be a good one.

TO Fix this..
We have to do a [Trace rout ] .. & detect the second Hop (*) (My Router GateWay = My ISP Server that serve Me)
if this hop time is High.. so this is a proof that theres a load on my ISP server or service
if not.. then,, the line is Good , no matter how Load I make on My line due to using my Full speed.

Do my thoughts go so far ?


(*) - No need to be an automated detection of My Router gateway.. just let Bandwidth controller ask me for it..
OR.. do an Automated TraceRoute.. & then Let Me choose what Point in Trace path that shoud be monitored, just to give flexibility of that detection.

I Hope this can work, this 'll be a Great Improvment of Piriority & scalling factor things, & these features are realy unique in Bandwidth controller products.


Low Ping Tim = Good Line Speed
-------------------


High Ping Time = Bad Line Speed

[admin]

I agree, pinging the first hop is a good solution. It can't tell us the absolute bandwidth but using the proper method it may be possible to implement some sort of dynamic line speed detection.

It will likely be 6 - 9 months before we get around to this feature and hopefully we can implement a solid system for line speed measurement.