BF2S Forums Limiting bandwidith on a home network

Jay wrote:

KingCheese wrote:

prototype wrote:

I pay for the cable connection so theres that plus all my room mates do is browse the web/email etc

Doesn't seem like that selfish a guy if he pays for the connection.  I'd say it's his right to do what he wants with it.

If he pays for the entire thing, I would have no problem with shutting down their link completely while he plays. I seriously doubt he pays the entire bill though. In that case, all he deserves is equal access, not priority.

nyeh

bleh

ergh



that's what i've been saying all along!


That is the REASON for QoS!



NYIEH!!

KingCheese wrote:

Oh if he doesn't pay the whole bill, sure equal is fair but if he pays for the whole shebang I'd say he's being generous in sharing his internetz.

Absolutely. All he said was that he's the superuser, as in, it's his name on the account and the router is in his room. That means shit if they're all paying an equal amount for the connection.

which, as a result, would create a balance and equality over the connection.

Jay wrote:

tazz. wrote:

which, as a result, would create a balance and equality over the connection.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe 'first come, first served' is equality. Any sort of prioritization is not.

Full equality in my mind is limiting all nodes to exactly their percentage.

If there are 2 nodes, 50% each, 3 nodes 1/3 etc.


Obviously this is inefficient, and thus why QoS was invented.


w/e though.

Well, this is a mind-numbingly stupid argument. Service-based scheduling exists solely because all applications aren't created equal, so it's unproductive to argue that FIFO switching in any multi-service environment is fair.

Online gaming represents flows that are low in throughput, but very sensitive to delay and jitter. Video streaming represents flows that are high in throughput, and not at all sensitive to delay or jitter if the capacity available consistently exceeds the throughput requirements. By definition, video streaming creates a flow that is disruptive to the network, particularly to latency and jitter sensitive applications, and by using service-based scheduling, this particular problem can be mitigated (at least to the degree possible without end-to-end prioritisation) with no noticeable negative impact on the disruptive application. Everybody wins.

Jay claims to have "a problem with a selfish no life having a negative impact on his roommates so he could burrow even further into his antisocial coccoon," but he'd likely remain fairly indifferent even if he spent a bit of time thinking about the circumstances and came to a sensible conclusion. That's because Jay doesn't really care about service quality, or fairness in scheduling, or even the topic at hand. Rather, Jay is just a very bitter person who likes to dig into people whenever he sees the chance, and he doesn't really care whether he's right or wrong, as long as he can pack enough insults into his posts.

Last edited by mikkel (2011-06-30 10:26:56)

Thank you all for the replies, except for Jay that is
lots of good info came out of the fighting, which was not intended but helpful, except for Jays input.

Like I said at the start of this, I actually do pay for the cable connection (20MB down/1MB up)
I let my room mates use it because they usually dont cause me probs but lately they are slowing me down.

QoS seems to work great and now I can game myself away into an antisocial cocoon of bliss, where the beer flows like water and the smell of herb permiates the air all hours of the night.

Jay, if you hate video games so much why do you visit and post on a gaming forum ?

Thanks again for all the helpful info

Last edited by prototype (2011-06-30 11:01:07)

I understand it perfectly. I just don't agree with its application when it comes at the expense of others. Trying to convince the lot of you that video games aren't a priority is like trying to push a boulder uphill.

Jay you are being unbelievably fucking obtuse

have you even read the replies in this thread?

Last edited by Lucien (2011-06-30 11:27:02)

Lucien wrote:

Jay you are being unbelievably fucking obtuse

have you even read the replies in this thread?

I have. Tazz and king were reasonable, and everyone else jumped all over me because they didn't like what I had to say.

Jay wrote:

I understand it perfectly. I just don't agree with its application when it comes at the expense of others. Trying to convince the lot of you that video games aren't a priority is like trying to push a boulder uphill.

jitter and latency dependent programs = high priority afaik.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Thread needs to calm the hell down.

Limiting bandwidth is fair if nobody else is helping to pay for it. It's unfair if they're compensating for that by throwing more money into other shared things than you are. Either way, it is douchey if taken too far.

Thank you.

tazz. wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

if taken too far.

NOT using QoS would be taking it too far.

Limiting them to, like i said, 50% of the bandwidth perm.

QoS is the solution

No, wait, it's not! Cause Jay said so.

Seriously though, QoS help massively

Ntwrkng = srs bsns