Smoother bandwidth limiting

jw schultz jw at
Wed Feb 5 11:46:52 EST 2003

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:06:26PM +0200, Mikko Rauhala wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2003, jw schultz wrote:
> > Just how magic is the 1024?  To what was bwlimit set?  And
> > the MTU?
> The 1024 is very magic, I just pulled it out of my hat and 'lo, it
> worked well enough so I didn't touch it.

I'm glad i asked.  That isn't magic at all.  That is
arbitrary.  Magic would be a number that if changed wouldn't
be nearly as effective and implies that you don't know why.

> I've usually used bwlimits of
> 4-12 depending on the time of day (expected available bandwidth in the
> neighbourhood) and my other traffic. MTU is 1500, but I'm not certain if
> the cable modem splits packages into smaller pieces than that for
> forwarding. I suspect not, though.
> > You do bring up an interesting point.  I could see
> > restricting the write to bwlimit/100.  Sleeping much longer
> > than 100ms is a bit crude.
> Tying the maximum amount to write to bwlimit sounds like a workable, a
> bit more general idea.

Yes but i'd like to hear from some people who know network
performance programming.

	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw at

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

More information about the rsync mailing list