Re: To QoS or load-balancing or both

QoS is used to prioritize one type of traffic over another. Without QoS,
all traffic streams will share the bandwidth, all of them dropping some
traffic. All of the streams will "equalize" based upon the total delay and
bandwidth available end-to-end for each stream. TCP uses a "sliding
window", or the amount of data that can be in transit without an
acknowledgement. Each time a packet is dropped, TCP will cut the TCP window
in half. This will reduce the amount of bandwidth used by that stream. For
each acknowledgement of a TCP segment with available window, the sender will
send an additional MTU worth of data until the window is full. This results
in the sharp drop-offs in bandwidth on streams when traffic is dropped, and
a slow increase in bandwidth when bandwidth is available. The end result is
that the lowest bandwidth streams will suffer the lowest packet drops, and
highest bandwidth stream will suffer the most. This mechanism is very
democratic, the lowest bandwidth streams will usually get all the bandwidth
they need, while the highest bandwidth streams will get the rest. If only a
few users are using lots of bandwidth, then you don't have a problem. By
rate-limiting users to max amount of bandwidth, users will not see any
significant improvement in performance and your users with big downloads
will use less bandwidth for longer periods. The only real benefit will be
that your T1 wont be running at full bandwidth. QoS would apply if you
wanted one group of users, or type of traffic to receive priority over other
users or types of traffic. For example, you had a group that if they had a
big downloads, that they would receive the lions share of bandwidth over
another group with big downloads. We use QoS on our network and have four
groups of traffic, priority, high, normal and scavenger. The priority queue
is for voice traffic, business applications are classified high, virus-scan
and other low priority transfers are in the scavenger queue (lowest) and
everything else falls into the normal queue. The queues are setup this way
so that during times of congestion, voice traffic is not affected, the
business applications get priority over internet and scavenger traffic.

In any event, QoS is not the solution to lack of bandwidth. QoS only
prioritizes traffic, and traffic from all queues is affected during times of
congestion (except for the priority queue, but that is a special queue that
has reserved bandwidth). The lowest priority queues are affected most.

Load balancing traffic over multiple connections is easy if they are all
have the same bandwidth, you simple put all of them in your routing table.
Load-balancing traffic over links of unequal bandwidth is very difficult and
load balancing inbound internet traffic is extremely difficult.


"AXJ" <nomail@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VY6dnTSRNNvbnBjVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi all

We have a 1840 router with 3 FastEthernet interfaces connecting T1, DSL,
and other DSL lines. The T1 is the default route. It's getting killed,
whenever one or two users start downloading huge files.

We have also configured route maps to route some users to the DSL lines.
to offload the T1. But this does not help with occasional large download.

Here is my delimma. Should we configure the FasterEthernet interface
connecting to the T1 router to have some sort of intelligent queuing so no
one single user can take all the bandwidth? Or should I load-balance among
the 3 circuits (how)?

Thanks.
Axj



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can Netscreen 5GT do QoS...?
    ... We need to give the ports Trusted 1+2 priority over Trusted 3+4? ... I.e. that 1+2 get all the bandwidth they need and 3+4 only get 'leftovers' and the full bandwidth when 1+2 is idle. ... QoS in ScreenOS is policy based, not port based, so your requirement is not directly supported. ... However, you should be able to achieve the desired behavior by putting the 5GT into Home-Work mode, enabling traffic shaping on all policies, and setting highest priority on all policies to/from the Work zone ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: BBC Internet radio streams
    ... They break the figures down a bit for radio, ... For the iPlayer TV streams: ... which would halve the value for the Internet radio bandwidth ... The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical ...
    (uk.tech.broadcast)
  • Re: Freesat picture quality BBC2
    ... a given mux, as with BBC One ... TP 12422 H, for example, carries six or seven of the regional variations, but the available bandwidth isn't divided up between them because - most of the time - they use the same video and audio streams with a high bitrate. ... For the regional news, however, the PIDs in the PMT change to different streams, and the bandwidth must then be divided up, giving a lower bitrate. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
  • Re: Those 32 extra bits are vital
    ... So why dont the BBC see this? ... The BBC iPlayer TV streams were already consuming 8 times as much bandwidth as the radio streams by August last year, the usage and therefore the bandwidth required for the iPlayer TV streams is increasing at an exponential rate, the BBC is planning on launching HD iPlayer TV streams at 4 Mbps this year, which is 40 times the bit rate of the radio streams, and the BBC is helping with the design of new Freeview and Freesat set-top boxes with Ethernet ports that will allow people to watch iPlayer TV streams on their TV sets, whcih Anthony Rose, who's in charge of the iPlaeyr, said could lead to the bandwidth increasing ten fold relative to what it is today. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Those 32 extra bits are vital
    ... So why dont the BBC see this? ... Simple bandwidth costs money ... The BBC iPlayer TV streams were already consuming 8 times as much ...
    (alt.radio.digital)