Lonnie,

It's really just my poor math. However, the process isn't as strict as
it might be. 

In actuality, my 600 kbps should be broken  into 216k and 384k. Since
the measured upstream 600 k is worst case there is a little latitude.

As far as I can tell there is now ability to "squeeze"....meaning that
there's no elasticity to the traffic shaper. If you cap something at
384k then that's all it ever gets. 

Since my Asterisk server handles my office and home lines I rarely have
more than three calls at one time. Using G.711 that would be around
320k outbound in total (3 x 64k + IP overhead)

A few months back I installed G.729 codecs on my server and made those
the prefered codecs. Using them each call consumes only 32k each leg.
This has given me some latitude in my tweaks. However, I used several
termination providers, a couple of which won't terminate G729 calls.
Thus I've not tried to recover any of the bandwidth assigned to the
voip side for general use.

After hours if I have a large upload to run, perhaps over the weekend,
I'll sometimes defeat the traffic shaper entirely and allow the data
side to use all the available bandwidth.

It's curious to note that Skype calls are not dealt with at all in my
scheme. I run Skype on my primary desktop, which is also the source of
most of the uploads that I run. So I can't manage based upon IP
address. Skype uses various port so port based traffic management is
not an option. Occasionally, when I'm very busy Skype calls are
actually worse that calls placed through the Asterisk server. A sweet
irony.

Michael


On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:24:20 -0500, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:

>Michael,
>
>I was studying your traffic shaping rules.
>
>You specified an upstream speed of 600 kb/s, that would result in a  
>540 kb/s bandwidth for pipe #1.
>
>You then added pipe #3 with 256 kb/s.
>
>You then reduced pipe #1 from 540 to 384 kb/s.
>
>Question: Shouldn't the reduced value for pipe #1 be 284? not 384 as  
>you show. (256 + 284 = 540)
>
>Or, does this let you 'squeeze' your pipe #3 smaller if pipe #1  
>demands it?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Lonnie
>
>On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>>> Since this question has come up several times recently I've made  
>>> screen
>>> shots of my m0n0 traffic shaper settings available via the following
>>> links.
>>
>> A most excellent sharing of information.
>>
>> Thanks you... very much appreciated.
>>
>> Lonnie
>>
>>
>
>

--
Michael Graves                           mgraves at pixelpower dot com
Sr. Product Specialist                          www.pixelpower.com
Pixel Power Inc.                                 mgraves at mstvp dot com

o713-861-4005
o800-905-6412
c713-201-1262
fwd 54245