Folding Forum

anandhanju wrote:4 8MB uploads at the same time? I do not know about your connection, but my wireless router decides to take a break if I do any web related activity when a big upload like this happens.

I'm currently using dial-up on my laptop and the same thing happens. It has been repeatedly suggested that FAH needs to share a connection better, because one a download or upload starts, my browser takes a break. I can certainly understand it getting slower, but something really needs to be done so that the QoS software can figure out how to provide a fair share to both FAH and to other Internet communications. Does anybody understand QoS well enough to know if it's something that needs to be tweaked in Windows/Linux/MacOS or if there's something that can be done differently by FAH to work better with QoS software?

The only thing I know is that I always disable QoS to get a better bandwidth on my network

toTOW wrote:The only thing I know is that I always disable QoS to get a better bandwidth on my network

Windows??

I do too, but it happened to still be enabled on that machine yesterday. Are we saying that Microsoft's QoS doesn't actually work? Can anybody point to a situation where FAH doesn't cmpletely shut out other applications on a relatively low speed connection?

Is it any different on Linux/MacOS?

Haven't tried messing with my QoS settings, have enough wireless trouble as it is I (nix newbie) believe Trickle achieves a decent traffic shaping functionality in Unix; I read it somewhere here.

For info on QoS in WinXP (and clarification for misconceptions), this [http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316666] is a good place to start although I couldn't find a guide that explains how to set it up.

@bruce, I've observed that my router dies only during massive uploads (including P2P seeding). Downloading, even if sustained at max permissible rate for a few hours, doesn't seem to clog up the pipes.

box [ http://navcompars.net/gringo/dellbox.pdf ] is win2k advanced server, no QOS option; there is a load balancing option but it's not installed. ISP is Quest DSL.

bruce wrote:

toTOW wrote:The only thing I know is that I always disable QoS to get a better bandwidth on my network

Windows??

I do too, but it happened to still be enabled on that machine yesterday. Are we saying that Microsoft's QoS doesn't actually work?

Yes Windows ... I'm not saying that it doesn't work, I'm only saying that it reserves bandwidth for dark purposes that prevent Ethernet/Wifi networks from getting all of the theorical bandwidth

The QoS on XP hiding bandwidth is a myth, an internet urban legend.

It only works if all of your networking architecture has implimented QoS services, servers, routers, switches, clients, etc.

The home user NEVER has to worry about that, and all but the largest corporations don't use it. It's just not that beneficial, and usually easier and cheaper to just add more bandwidth rather than trying to control the bandwidth you have.

EDIT: Supporting URL http://www.tweakxp.com/article37125.aspx

Adding bandwidth isn't a good solution when all I can use is dial-up. That's the only place I can think of where QoS would really be needed. Are you saying that it doesn't work because my ISP doesn't support it?

Suggestion to Mod/Admin: This really should be a separate thread for QoS. Can you separate it into its own topic?

I guess my recall of that myth from 7 years ago wasn't as good as I thought. You don't need all of the networking infrastructure to support QoS to use QoS. The rest is still accurate QoS does not STEAL bandwidth. Read the link I edited in above, or Google it for yourself.

7im wrote:I guess my recall of that myth from 7 years ago wasn't as good as I thought. You don't need all of the networking infrastructure to support QoS to use QoS. The rest is still accurate QoS does not STEAL bandwidth. Read the link I edited in above, or Google it for yourself.

Spot on. My post earlier has the link to the responses from Microsoft regarding the "XP steals my bandwidth for QoS" myth. codysluder's right, LOL@us, Lgringo's probably drumming his fingers waiting for us to run of steam on this QoS thing before he gets a word or two in

no worries, i really don't know much of anything about QoS except how to spell it most likely, the straight story on the 4-hour uploads is that there isn't a straight story that can be dug up at this point in time .....

I was wondering something similar the other day.

Would it be possible for Vijay and his team to add a rate limiter to the client so it will never send back at a faster rate than you specify. It would be nice to cap upload to about 10k/sec.

As for dialup users, well should you not be using the small workunit setting, anyway?

v00d00 wrote:I was wondering something similar the other day.

Would it be possible for Vijay and his team to add a rate limiter to the client so it will never send back at a faster rate than you specify. It would be nice to cap upload to about 10k/sec.

As for dialup users, well should you not be using the small workunit setting, anyway?

I know that Net Limiter can help you limit the transfert rate per software ... but it would be good to see the option aviable in the client

Unfortunately netlimiter is a windows product, which is pointless for someone who doesnt field any windows machines.

I can build a queued pool system with squid, but its not worth it for one application. It would be nicer to just have rate limiting in the client.

Also it would be even nicer if it downloaded the new work unit first, then sent the old one, so it didnt waste 15 mins of folding time prior to getting something new to process. Unless my idea that this was a multi-threaded client, is wrong, in which case it probably cant handle doing two thing simultaneously.

v00d00 wrote:As for dialup users, well should you not be using the small workunit setting, anyway?

I am using "small" and I still get results that are 8 or 9 MB. (I don't think the Pande Group actually checks the size of the compressed file.) There is no really right answer. At a limited rate, the upload never finishes because the server aborts the connection after an hour. If I use the full bandwidth, the internet is inaccessable. QoS must be dynamic based on sharing whatever bandwith is available in an equitable manner.