Lite version Queue Size

Started by kiwi_rock

Lite version Queue Size   07 January 2006, 12:26

Hi Andrew,

I had a quick play with the lite version today since the standard trial ran out on me as I haven't had enough time this last week after a slight accident with a screw driver while fixing electronics to play with it further. I'm limiting a 256Kbps downstream to 128Kbps with the lite version, although no matter what I limit in speed terms, the download queue is usually around 42-44 packets for IP Based or TCP and UDP protocol selection. Is this normal? I had a funny feeling I used to get 4-8 packets queued with the standard version no matter what the speed restrictions in place. If it's normal cool. I thought the closer to the rated line speed the less queuing... I guess not.

Gavin.
SoftPerfect Support forum - Andrew avatar image

Re: Lite version Queue Size   07 January 2006, 20:47

It mostly depends on the traffic composition. For instance, if you just download a file from the Internet, there is the only TCP connection and the queue is short. But if you run say a P2P client like eMule, it establihes a lot of TCP sessions and also uses the datagram oriented UDP protocol, then the queue size may be raised. However, the queue size is not a problem until it peaks to hundreds when the manager begins dropping packets.

Re: Lite version Queue Size   08 January 2006, 08:25

Yes I was just downloading the one file, I tried via FTP then via HTTP. The queue sits around 44 packets for a single TCP download regardless of what speed reduction I use on the 256Kbps line. But you are right, it's only if the queue exceeds its limit that it's a major problem. I was so sure that on version 2.3/4 the queue size for the same thing used to be around 7-8 packets for a single download. If it was, it would have been a lower latency for other traffic. I wish I kept 2.4 beta or 2.3 now to double check.

Oh well, in saying that it works great and I love the idea of the IP Family!
SoftPerfect Support forum - Andrew avatar image

Re: Lite version Queue Size   08 January 2006, 08:40

I have recently received a customer report informs me about a similar issue. After he upgraded to the latest version, the manager begins keeping a higher number of packets in the queue than before (at least 5x increase). Moreover, his previously defined transfer limits do not throttle connections correctly. So, I will check it with the latest and previous releases and probably there will be a bug fix.

Re: Lite version Queue Size   08 January 2006, 08:50

I just managed to find an older copy of 2.3 from one of those shareware places without linking back to your website for download. Unless 2.5 has changed something in the registry that makes 2.3 behave the same, it appears 2.3 also has packets up at 43-44 in TCP for the one file. I think I just wasn't as observant as I thought, my appologies. Strange that customer has reported a similar thing though.

But I can't get over the IP Family in 2.5, it's great! I'll have to check my credit card balance and go shopping one of these days when it all runs out. Before, I blocked all traffic appart from authorised MAC's, however it blocked ARP requests to, which was kind of fun to work around. Although now I only block IP Family, but I've learnt to make each PC have a static ARP entry for the gateway anyway, so if I open up a wifi node to the public, I won't have ARP spoofing to worry about as much.
jeremy

Re: Lite version Queue Size   27 June 2008, 00:24

In a related topic, I am trying to set the queue size to zero for a time-critical network. After changing the size from, say, 500 to 0, the BWM changes the queue size to 10 packets. Is there any way around this?
SoftPerfect Support forum - Andrew avatar image

Re: Lite version Queue Size   27 June 2008, 13:18

No, because if the queue size is set to zero, BWM would lose its bandwidth limiting capabilities. You can learn more about the token bucket filter algorithm (see paragraph 9.2.2) used in BWM. Setting the queue size to zero effectively means setting the bucket size to zero which makes no sense for the algorithm.

Reply to this topic

Sometimes you can find a solution faster if you try the forum search, have a look at the knowledge base, or check the software user manual to see if your question has already been answered.

Our forum rules are simple:

  • Be polite.
  • Do not spam.
  • Write in English. If possible, check your spelling and grammar.

Author:

Email:

Subject

A brief and informative title for your message, approximately 4–8 words:

     

Spam prevention: please enter the following code in the input field below.

  *******   **    **  ********    *******    *******  
 **     **  ***   **  **     **  **     **  **     ** 
        **  ****  **  **     **  **     **         ** 
  *******   ** ** **  ********    ********   *******  
        **  **  ****  **     **         **         ** 
 **     **  **   ***  **     **  **     **  **     ** 
  *******   **    **  ********    *******    *******  

Message: