Deliberately slow network speed

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Matthew Strickland, Feb 23, 2005.

  1. Hey all,

    Is there a tool to deliberately slow down network speed, add latency, reduce
    bandwidth etc? Wanting to run it on a test server for reliability and sample
    field testing of database going to be used in a WAN enviroment.

    And while im here - is there such a thing as 1024x768 native 17" LCD screen?
    As ive got a few 1280x1024 ones but this resolution is just too small on a
    17" screen. - Even changing font size isnt good enough. Changing DPI causes
    problems with too many programs, and cheap 19" LCD's look terrible!

    Cheers all

    Matt
     
    Matthew Strickland, Feb 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Matthew Strickland" <> wrote in
    news:8LSSd.3709$:

    > Is there a tool to deliberately slow down network speed, add
    > latency, reduce bandwidth etc? Wanting to run it on a test
    > server for reliability and sample field testing of database
    > going to be used in a WAN enviroment.


    www.netlimiter.com reduces bandwidth for Windows.
     
    Mark Cranness, Feb 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matthew Strickland

    BTMO Guest

    "Matthew Strickland" <> wrote

    > Is there a tool to deliberately slow down network speed, add latency,
    > reduce
    > bandwidth etc?


    yeah, it is called "bitstream"

    ;-)
     
    BTMO, Feb 23, 2005
    #3
  4. Matthew Strickland

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Matthew Strickland wrote:
    > Hey all,
    >
    > Is there a tool to deliberately slow down network speed, add latency,
    > reduce bandwidth etc?


    Yeah but I think Telecom have the patent on it and aren't sharing. They're
    using it for UBS traffic.
    --
    ~misfit~



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 23, 2005
    #4
  5. Matthew Strickland

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Matthew Strickland wrote:
    > Hey all,
    >
    > Is there a tool to deliberately slow down network speed, add latency, reduce
    > bandwidth etc? Wanting to run it on a test server for reliability and sample
    > field testing of database going to be used in a WAN enviroment.


    Yeah, it is called UBS :)
     
    -=rjh=-, Feb 23, 2005
    #5
  6. Matthew Strickland

    E. Guest

    Matthew Strickland wrote:

    > Hey all,
    >
    > Is there a tool to deliberately slow down network speed, add latency, reduce
    > bandwidth etc? Wanting to run it on a test server for reliability and sample
    > field testing of database going to be used in a WAN enviroment.


    You can easily guesstimate:
    Run the app in a 100mbit environment and note start times, response
    times etc.
    Say it takes 14 seconds to start, 4 seconds to respond.

    The calculate WAN bandwidth - encryption (knock off a 3rd).
    e.g. 1.5mbs *symmetric* will mean 1 mbit bandwidth.

    Difference in bandwith is 100 times.

    Therefore 14 secs * 100 = 1400 secs to start, 4 *100 = 400 secs to
    respond. This is *not* gospel, merely indictive.

    You may wish to look at terminal services or telnet etc over VPN/WAN as
    an alternative.
    E.
     
    E., Feb 23, 2005
    #6
  7. Matthew Strickland wrote:

    > Hey all,
    >
    > Is there a tool to deliberately slow down network speed, add latency, reduce
    > bandwidth etc? Wanting to run it on a test server for reliability and sample
    > field testing of database going to be used in a WAN enviroment.
    >
    > And while im here - is there such a thing as 1024x768 native 17" LCD screen?
    > As ive got a few 1280x1024 ones but this resolution is just too small on a
    > 17" screen. - Even changing font size isnt good enough. Changing DPI causes
    > problems with too many programs, and cheap 19" LCD's look terrible!


    our dell ones at work do both 1280x1024 and 1024x768 nativly(as in looks
    good)... the HP 17s dont, just 1280x1024

    I hadn't seen them do two correctly, so yeah, I was impressed.

    --
    Dave.net.nz
    reply addy is e
    nice! http://www.dave.net.nz/images/link.jpg
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Feb 23, 2005
    #7
  8. In article <8LSSd.3709$>, "Matthew Strickland" <> wrote:
    >Hey all,
    >
    >Is there a tool to deliberately slow down network speed, add latency, reduce
    >bandwidth etc? Wanting to run it on a test server for reliability and sample
    >field testing of database going to be used in a WAN enviroment.
    >

    *SNIP*

    FreeBSD's dummynet and ipfw pairing will do all that and more. Can
    introduce random packet loss, latency, congestion, you name it. Plenty
    of examples out there on how to configure up what you're after. All you
    need is a box with two NICs. It doesn't even need to be a flash box.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Feb 23, 2005
    #8
  9. On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:28:04 +1300, Matthew Strickland wrote:

    > Hey all,
    >
    > Is there a tool to deliberately slow down network speed, add latency, reduce
    > bandwidth etc? Wanting to run it on a test server for reliability and sample
    > field testing of database going to be used in a WAN enviroment.



    theres a thread about this on comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
    (although I'm willing to bet OpenBSD isnt your OS)
    I'll copy and paste the relevant bits anyway
    <Q>
    The user of this machine often sends large emails (often 3 meg
    or more) and when this happens , the rest of the network chokes. is
    there a way I can limit the upload speed of a particular machine to
    say 4k/s max? Does PF have some feature for this?!?

    Yes. altq is what you are looking for.

    If all you want to do is limit the bandwidth for a simgle machine, you
    can set up a default queue with total bandwidth equal to total outgoing
    capacity, then set up a subqueue with the max bandwidth you want that
    machine to use, then write one or more rules which pass the traffic from
    that machine on the smaller queue. Let the rest of the traffic you pass
    use the default queue.

    Whether you NAT or not should not affect your queueing. Your pass rule will
    be something like

    pass from $bandwidth_hogger to any port $allowed_ports \
    keep state queue thin_pipe
    pass from $rest_of_lan to any port $allowed_ports \
    keep state queue big_pipe

    - assuming of course you have defined bandwidth_hogger, allowed_ports,
    rest_of_lan and the queues thin_pipe, big_pipe already.

    My PF tutorial (http://www.bgnett.no/~peter/pf/en/) contains a few
    reasonably clear examples lifted from real world use which are slightly
    less complex than the ones in the excellent PF user guide.

    HTH

    --

    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked
     
    Shane (aka froggy), Feb 23, 2005
    #9
  10. Matthew Strickland

    Benji Thorn Guest

    Not to mention Orcon for jeez well, anything...

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Matthew Strickland wrote:
    >
    >>Hey all,
    >>
    >>Is there a tool to deliberately slow down network speed, add latency,
    >>reduce bandwidth etc?

    >
    >
    > Yeah but I think Telecom have the patent on it and aren't sharing. They're
    > using it for UBS traffic.
    > --
    > ~misfit~
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    Benji Thorn, Feb 24, 2005
    #10
  11. > Is there a tool to deliberately slow down network speed, add latency,
    reduce
    > bandwidth etc? <snip>


    Cheers all for your comments.... ill be looking into all of them.
     
    Matthew Strickland, Feb 27, 2005
    #11
  12. "Dave - Dave.net.nz" wrote in message:
    > our dell ones at work do both 1280x1024 and 1024x768 nativly(as in looks
    > good)... the HP 17s dont, just 1280x1024

    <snip>

    Thats amazing - which model? even more amazing as those two aspect ratios
    are different (4/3 , 5/4) - which means natively you would have (black
    unused area?) around the edges? on 1024x768 - which defeats the purpose - as
    the viewing size is still the same. ie font size stays the same.

    Matt
     
    Matthew Strickland, Feb 27, 2005
    #12
  13. Matthew Strickland wrote:
    >>our dell ones at work do both 1280x1024 and 1024x768 nativly(as in looks
    >>good)... the HP 17s dont, just 1280x1024


    > Thats amazing - which model? even more amazing as those two aspect ratios
    > are different (4/3 , 5/4) - which means natively you would have (black
    > unused area?) around the edges? on 1024x768 - which defeats the purpose - as
    > the viewing size is still the same. ie font size stays the same.


    I think we only got the 107 and 108P but not absolutly sure.

    Cant say I ever noticed the black bars, so I guess it doesnt do it.
     
    Dave - dave.net.nz, Feb 27, 2005
    #13
  14. Matthew Strickland

    Enkidu Guest

    Dave - dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Matthew Strickland wrote:
    >
    >>> our dell ones at work do both 1280x1024 and 1024x768 nativly(as in looks
    >>> good)... the HP 17s dont, just 1280x1024

    >
    >
    >> Thats amazing - which model? even more amazing as those two aspect ratios
    >> are different (4/3 , 5/4) - which means natively you would have (black
    >> unused area?) around the edges? on 1024x768 - which defeats the
    >> purpose - as
    >> the viewing size is still the same. ie font size stays the same.

    >
    >
    > I think we only got the 107 and 108P but not absolutly sure.
    >
    > Cant say I ever noticed the black bars, so I guess it doesnt do it.


    Those are Philips model numbers. If they say "Dell" they may
    be rebadged. (I missed the start of the thread. Sorry if
    I've also missed the point!)

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
     
    Enkidu, Feb 28, 2005
    #14
  15. Enkidu wrote:
    >>> Thats amazing - which model? even more amazing as those two aspect
    >>> ratios
    >>> are different (4/3 , 5/4) - which means natively you would have (black
    >>> unused area?) around the edges? on 1024x768 - which defeats the
    >>> purpose - as
    >>> the viewing size is still the same. ie font size stays the same.


    >> I think we only got the 107 and 108P but not absolutly sure.
    >> Cant say I ever noticed the black bars, so I guess it doesnt do it.


    > Those are Philips model numbers. If they say "Dell" they may be
    > rebadged. (I missed the start of the thread. Sorry if I've also missed
    > the point!)


    I know they're Philips models, but they don't always use Philips
    either... they're a PITA, minor changes in chipset(NIC revision needing
    different drivers) meaning ghost images wont work... grrr.

    --
    Dave.net.nz
    reply addy is e
    nice! http://www.dave.net.nz/images/link.jpg
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Feb 28, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. a.metselaar

    speed speed speed

    a.metselaar, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,019
    BuffNET Tech Support - MichaelJ
    Dec 30, 2003
  2. jpg deliberately degraded

    , Jan 29, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    933
    Scott W
    Jan 30, 2007
  3. Jimchip
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    691
    Jimchip
    Apr 17, 2006
  4. Whisky-dave
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    322
    TheRealSteve
    Apr 17, 2012
  5. Laszlo Lebrun
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    433
    Ryan McGinnis
    Apr 18, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page