From: "Joe Barr" 

On Tue, 20 May 2003 18:42:05 -0400, Geo. wrote:

> Without looking at it in too much depth, it looks fairly comparable in
> price and capabilities to a packetshaper (looks like a nice product). It's
> missing some features, got more automatic functions and has a feature I
> really would love to have (the time of day thing) but other than that I'd
> say price and capabilities are competitive with packetshaper. This one
> seems to have a free version you can play with which might be useful for
> some folks, but for a box and software to handle a 60mb subnet (100baseT)
> the costs appear to be about equal with packetshaper. I see they have user
> licensing (10,000 users is the max) which packetshaper doesn't.
>
> Don't take that as a review though, I didn't spend a lot of time reading
> all the details.
>
> Also I don't agree with what they say about it being ideal for an ISP, it
> appears more geared to a university type network as it's set to
> automatically look for bandwidth hogs and would take just as much setup as
> a packet shaper for an ISP. An ISP doesn't care about bandwidth hogs who
> are paying for the bandwidth, our need is to be able to set a limit based
> on how much bandwidth a customer contracts for. The packetshaper is nice
> because it lets us do that and if we have spare bandwidth all customers
> can use it as long as it's available. So if bob contracts for 3mb but is
> only using 1mb now, everyone else has an extra 2mb to play with (if we set
> it that way). It appears this can do that as well but you would have to
> turn off the automatic stuff.
>
> Geo.
>
> "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.05.20.13.53.57.315276{at}austin.rr.com...
>> http://freshmeat.net/projects/arbitrator/
>>
>> Have you looked at this bandwidth arbitrator for Linux?
>>
>> I'm curious as to how the features/prices compare to equivalent products
>> in the Windows world.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>

Thanks for your insights.


--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4