Thanks that makes sense.  Seems to be like you said, Josh, without the queues on different interfaces somehow communicating with each other, they can't shape properly if given access to sort of "overlapping" bandwidth.  I might have to look into this a bit more :)  I do find it really interesting and confusing trying to understand exactly how TCP works in this kind of situation.  I think probably each network will end up getting bandwidth proportional to how many connections it has, and no way to specify "network 1 limit bw to .3k only if other networks are using 1.2k"

I like the idea of using 5 interfaces and pluging one into the other, should be able to do that with a little VLAN switch… which then makes me wonder if you couldn't do that somehow within pfSense using vlans and bridges somehow... have to look into this now...

Very informative thank you. It makes sense that An adverse effect of shaping is increased data on the ISP's side. Because delayed data gets re transmitted because it thinks it's "in error". Where as is has a long response or timeout.

It's good information for others to concider. You may be limiting you internet usage going out but hitting your WAN, it's increased because of the drop retransmit.

@roja: i've used multilan setup succesfully now for three weeks. actually having 3 different lans.
1 lan is priq(mine)
2 others are set hsfc(others)

and it works fine

Did you update or something?!?

Please give more info

;D not Sure what you mean by the last line but if you're main Focus is to limit youtube, you first need to "google" youtube's ip ranges
and then create a rule and place data from those sites (source) in to a low priority queue using the firewall rules. Destination will be "any".

**Note you may have to create a few rules to get a majority of the Youtube servers. Also you can have wider mask on the source address.
The other way was to use squid and reg ex the hell out of the http data, but i personnely I don't find that works as well.

For flash from other sites the Proxy method may have to be the way you go.

My 2 cents  ;D

Hope fully some one replied but i am going to Throw my 2 cents in; I too was running 1.2.3 and When 2.0 came out i upgrade and was horrified by how it did not work. Features were nice but if they did not work, I am loking at you PPPOE creating multiple adapters ..

Now i have bit the bullet and upgraded to 2.0 RC3 and WOW what a difference. It's way better than 1.2.3 and many of the post here with questions it starts to be noticeable who has 1.2.3 and who has 2.0 RC3 by the questions they ask. 2.0 really makes Traffic shaping easier with Layer 7 and with parent vs child queues setup.

And Yes Create a back of your 1.2.3 and then upgrade. The best tip i had was remove your packages before upgrading. Then after upgrading reapply your packages all config's will remain. Then create a new backup of your 2.0 (different backup files).

my  2 cents

@neewbie:

check the default queue. bandwidh in% curve in kb. such as the inverted image above.

the snapshots. pfSense-Full-Update-2.0-RC3-i386-20110728-2121.tgz   been running normally.

you mean i should check Default Queue in qP2P ?

@ermal:

Check latest snapshots.

Cool, I'm running Sunday July 24th snapshot, will update.

videostream limit by using the L7 can too. with queue can too.
if using L7, flash protocol  limiter structure behvior limiternya name. and create a rule floating for port 1935 with L 7.

Well it took a while but I got it. I think I was getting mixed up, so, I put all the settings in a spread sheet. So, now netflix from my Wii is now uninterrupted, although it is a little slow on the initial load but I'm not concerned with waiting an extra 10-15 seconds until the shaper regulates itself.

Actually, I am realizing that this doesn't work quite the way it seemed to, it's a bit more complicated.  Take my example above: upperlimit m1=100%, d=5min, m2=20%… well, the 5 min seems to depend on how much of the 100% the user is actually getting, it will be longer than 5 min if the user is only able to use say, 50% of the bandwidth because he is sharing with another user, not really understanding exactly how the timer works in fact.  Maybe someone will explain it but seems like very few people really understand hfsc queues.  Anyway, in this scenario, the users may never get throttled when there are lots of users "fighting" over the available bandwidth, instead they get throttled when no one is using it, which is the opposite of what I would hope for.  Looks like back to studying and experimenting for me, rather than posting in the forum!

Just add the shaping to port 21 and it will apply the same to the data channels.

I need exactly the same thing. I am very interested to know. Last I had an issue with Traffic Shaper no one was able to help and seemed to me that TS is broken in version 1.2.3.

I am hoping someone answer this.

If not possible to traffic shape based on the NIC port then is it possible to traffic shape based on the destination IP? (*sorry don't mean to hijake the question and I am hoping someone answere something….)

Thanks

In pftop, Queue View (#8) shows actual traffic amount in individual queues and Rule View (#6) shows traffic amount by individual rules so that they should tell you whether the shaping takes its effect and also how accurate it is.

Thanks for the replies.. very interesting.. I will definately give this a shot and see how it goes..

As a small WISP starting up, bandwidth here is so expensive that i must oversell to cover costs, so i need all the help i can get so that a few users dont take all the bandwidth.. Obviously in time and the more bandwidth i purchase gets cheaper, i can do this less and less, but for now i have to.