Changes between Version 3 and Version 4 of Ticket #1788, comment 2


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Apr 24, 2016 6:45:01 AM (3 years ago)
Author:
foible
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #1788, comment 2

    v3 v4  
    1 Another thought that I've just had is that the 90% usage soft limit might be a better fit in routers that are sharing less bandwidth than mine, and conversely, that a 95% cutoff might still be too conservative in very high-throughput routers. So another thing to consider would be either changing those cutoffs to be absolute in kBps (like by lumping them in with MIN_AVAILABLE_BPS, and having the slope go all the way to "100%" instead of 95%), or changing that "soft limit" percentage to change/scale on its own at various total bandwidth limits. Just another small piece of this to think about.
     1Another thought that I've just had is that the 90% usage soft limit might be a better fit in routers that are sharing less bandwidth than mine, and conversely, that a 95% cutoff might still be too conservative in very high-throughput routers. So another thing to consider would be either changing those cutoffs to be absolute in kBps (like by lumping them in with MIN_AVAILABLE_BPS, and having the slope go all the way to "100%" of bandwidth usage instead of 95%), or changing that "soft limit" percentage to change/scale on its own at various total bandwidth limits. Just another small piece of this to think about.
    22
    33It would be great to hear from people with routers that are different than my own, to get a sense of how their bandwidth graph looks (and how much potential bandwidth is "wasted"), and how it might look with some tuning done.