Networking: Granular QoS
Provide a means of applying QoS to users and sessions, so that granular controls can be applied as needed to better control traffic and bandwidth.. Fine-tunes the offering of QoS to allow for more specific environments and configurations.
stephen Eaton commented
Agree, also ability as mentioned below to input min and max as a percentage of interface bandwidth instead of fixed.
By adding granularity one important must would be ability to nest bandwidth pools, e.g. a bandwidth pool could have a parent that it works within.
i.e. I have a bandwidth pool for WIFI public hotspot interned shared with main office with a fixed total bandwidth availability of 20% of total BW, then the Public Hotspot Pool has child pools for other thing, e.g. streaming, P2P where a % can be defined of the parent pool rather than interface total bandwidth
Christian Heutger commented
Minimum bandwidth should really be minimum and proportions settings been stated as such
Damir Imamovic commented
I was ready to create new idea but this one is close. Application traffic shapping is something we must have. Example:
I would ilke to setup percentage or amount of bandwidth available to Citrix no matter what is going on on link. For this you have to have something like packeteer but is quite expensive for simple deployments ...
I was at a school recently and they had a generic looking box doing all the QoS. When I inquired about it, they said they had been using it for about a decade. It is still running 2.4 kernel and the granular control you wouldn't believe. I wouldn't name the product but with huge demands for bandwidth, granular control over everything each user/app is doing is not just a wish, its a priority.
Luke Roussell commented
Adoption of IP videoconferencing is on the rise and customers now are already using VoIP. You need to play nice with integration of voice + rich multimedia to compete with cisco, juniper, etc on the road ahead.
Jürgen Labs commented
It would be great if it would be possible to sort trafic in different queues. Then you migth be able to give prioritys to the queues. At least you should be able to drop packets from the queues with low priority by random to aviod growing of the queue. The Network Protokol will do the rest if the wrong packet is dropped.
Martin Holst commented
Ability to shape traffic by priority / weight.
L7-protocol-classification of traffic. (Already used for the IM/P2P-control?)
Andrew Holdeman commented
It would also be VERY nice if we could specify exclusions to the QOS pools such as from 1 internal network to another behind the Astaro Firewall.
This is a great idea, I have an Allot Netenforcer outside my firewall which is great for monitoring protocols and sites and specific bandwidth allocations. The machine is awesome but pricey.
I thought Astaro would take care of QoS for the inside but I was mistaken. Its pretty ho-hum bare bones stuff. Hardly any options.... compared to my experience with Packeteer and Allot. Should definitely improve it.
Would be very important to have a chance to manage the queue per Priority
Matthias Nees commented
I tried 2 things with QoS - limit http (does not work) - limit ftp (does work well). I think generally Astaro should improve the QoS Feature in ASG.
Bert Janssen commented
Hi, this would be a great improvement indeed.. allso an good option would be Session based QOS (so for example set a maximum bandwith of 1 Mbit per session/source ip of a user that downloads from a webserver)
Applying QOS by times would be also great and very useful, so we could apply more bandwidth to different services in different times.
Marcus Hock commented
QoS is very "lowlevel" anyway on astaro, as you cannot really manage the downstream bandwidth of an application (This isn't mentioned in the manuals!)
I thought I could limit the amount of downstream bandwith used by the HTTP Proxy, for example - but actually this isn't possible due to patent rewasons, I think