Wonder Shaper - OMFG it WORKS !!!!! Fantastic !

Lostie · 12 Nov 2002 at 08:41

My findings are in THIS thread in the Internet & Networking forum, I guess Linux-specific questions should be asked here.

Anyway this amazing piece of software eliminates most lag/latency on my ADSL connection, allowing me to play online games and websurf with great speed DURING huge uploads and downloads

Read the above thread for my findings.

fIREfox · 12 Nov 2002 at 08:48

Well done and great to hear it m8. Did you find it plain sailing or need to flange a little?

Lostie · 12 Nov 2002 at 09:10

Originally posted by fIREfox
Well done and great to hear it m8. Did you find it plain sailing or need to flange a little?

It was simply a case of turning on a load of options in the kernel, and running the wonder shaper script. That's all there is to it !

So yes it was plain sailing, far easier than I'd imagined !

fIREfox · 12 Nov 2002 at 09:39

Coolies...

I can feel a reinstall of the firewall and an upgrade to iptables comming on

Pez · 12 Nov 2002 at 09:41

w00t

.

Ill be installing this

Lostie · 12 Nov 2002 at 09:58

UPDATE: I've just found a FAR better script than wonder shaper that uses the packet-marking feature of iptables and manages bandwidth even more efficiently! It's much harder to set up though as it requires the HTB and IMQ kernel patches. That's my next goal

Mickey · 12 Nov 2002 at 12:38

I've been reading about this but it'd mean ditching my nice ikkle freesco router and having to bang a HD in that box. The only other option would be to have freesco as the router/firewall and have all traffic go through another server, this'd just be pointless though and also make quite a few problems for my existing network :/

Shak · 12 Nov 2002 at 18:11

Nice, Im wondering about getting another NIC and setting this up with it, would it work for only part of a network?

I have two parts to mine, on that is routed by a hardware router and the other could be by the webserver machine. Is it worth it?

Shak

Lostie · 12 Nov 2002 at 18:39

Originally posted by Shak
Nice, Im wondering about getting another NIC and setting this up with it, would it work for only part of a network?

I have two parts to mine, on that is routed by a hardware router and the other could be by the webserver machine. Is it worth it?

You should be able to use just one NIC plugged into a hub/switch to be honest, you will need to create a virtual NIC/alias to do the wonder shaping on though

You can have it limit the bandwidth of any host, or hosts on your network, or even just ports and/or protocols...

R4z0r · 12 Nov 2002 at 20:47

How does this work, is it QOS or something?

Unfortunetly I've just got a hardware router (Getting ADSL tomorrow - Fingers crossed!) so this would mean setting up PPTP links (Grrr!) to a linux box and I would lose uPNP!

Bah, decisions!

-=R4z0r

Baloo · 12 Nov 2002 at 20:51

Yes, it works by slowing down the certain services to an acceptable speed whilst giving priority to others.

A bit of a balancing act.

Warfish · 13 Nov 2002 at 12:22

What distro did you put it on?
I want to get this setup on my smoothwall firewall. I've got a feeling a'd have to recompile the kernal tho?

astralcars · 13 Nov 2002 at 12:29

Originally posted by Warfish
What distro did you put it on?
I want to get this setup on my smoothwall firewall. I've got a feeling a'd have to recompile the kernal tho?

I think he used Slackware

Lostie · 13 Nov 2002 at 18:00

Yes I'm using Slackware 8.1.01.

UPDATE: I've now found a USERSPACE daemon that does the same thing that wondershaper does, that means no need to recompile the kernel ! Watch this space

Ben · 13 Nov 2002 at 18:24

hmm gave it a shot on my machine on eth0 (since I go out via a smoothy). set it up for 64K, since I'm only on ISDN, damn you BT for not installing ADSL in my area.

Okay I chose 212.140.212.13 as my ip to ping since it was the next hop after my smoothie.

Normal (i.e no downloads going on)

bash-2.05a$ ping 212.140.212.13
PING 212.140.212.13 (212.140.212.13): 56 octets data
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=0 ttl=254 time=70.8 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=67.3 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=2 ttl=254 time=63.1 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=3 ttl=254 time=65.1 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=4 ttl=254 time=61.3 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=5 ttl=254 time=93.2 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=6 ttl=254 time=82.6 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=7 ttl=254 time=67.0 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=8 ttl=254 time=69.0 ms

--- 212.140.212.13 ping statistics ---
9 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 61.3/71.0/93.2 ms

I downloaded a mp3 off of a m8 to give this thing a whirl, in the end it averaged 5.34K/sec.

Ping without Wonder shaper

bash-2.05a$ ping 212.140.212.13
PING 212.140.212.13 (212.140.212.13): 56 octets data
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=0 ttl=254 time=1172.5 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=1268.9 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=2 ttl=254 time=1371.7 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=3 ttl=254 time=1468.1 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=4 ttl=254 time=1562.7 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=5 ttl=254 time=1661.8 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=6 ttl=254 time=1755.3 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=7 ttl=254 time=1844.7 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=9 ttl=254 time=2071.0 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=10 ttl=254 time=1082.2 ms

--- 212.140.212.13 ping statistics ---
13 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 23% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 1082.2/1525.8/2071.0 ms

And With

bash-2.05a$ ping 212.140.212.13
PING 212.140.212.13 (212.140.212.13): 56 octets data
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=0 ttl=254 time=1213.0 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=423.4 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=2 ttl=254 time=70.4 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=3 ttl=254 time=257.0 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=4 ttl=254 time=608.9 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=5 ttl=254 time=398.9 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=6 ttl=254 time=62.2 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=7 ttl=254 time=70.2 ms
64 octets from 212.140.212.13: icmp_seq=8 ttl=254 time=90.3 ms

--- 212.140.212.13 ping statistics ---
9 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 62.2/354.9/1213.0 ms

So yeah, not too sad here. Although it did seem at times that wondershaper would reduce the download speed to 2K/sec. But web performance did seem to be normal with it's use.
Would be nicer to be able to run it on my smoothie so it applies to the family machine downstairs too.

Warfish · 13 Nov 2002 at 20:46

Yeah ben, i want to run it on my smoothwall box too. I think i'll have to re compile the kernal. I'm not gunna poke around till everyone in my house is out for along time. If sunnit goes wrong i can re install

Lostie · 13 Nov 2002 at 21:12

Performance with wshaper improves the more bandwidth you have, so it's idealy suited to adsl/cable connections but as you have proven it can drastically improve the performance of your connection even on ISDN or 56k modems!

Also, it's FAR FAR better at coping with uploads than downloads - uploads can be precisely controlled whilst downloads cannot.

Since then I have found 2 other solutions that both puport to be loads better than wonder shaper, I'll be testing them soon and will report findings here

Warfish · 13 Nov 2002 at 22:27

Warfish want better! Warfish want better!