Global Traffic manager


13 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

I want to manage the Traffic of Docker containers. EG i have 100MBit upload. EG i have ftp server and emby. I want to priorize emby over ftpd. I want to reserve 90MBit for emby but only if needed. Otherwise proftpd can use 90MBit if no emby user is active

Edited by Gee1
Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I have not done this, but I believe it would be possible this way:

 

setup the docker containers on their own IP address

manage the bandwidth using QoS settings on your router

 

I do not believe unRaid will do this natively. 

Link to post
35 minutes ago, 1812 said:

I have not done this, but I believe it would be possible this way:

 

setup the docker containers on their own IP address

manage the bandwidth using QoS settings on your router

 

I do not believe unRaid will do this natively. 

If you have the right router probably can, but if we can do it with unraid would be better as some routers don’t have all the bell and width Lea. Also, the amount of routers that have NAT Loopback/Hairpin is not a lot out there and also to have the limiting factor on the router as well probably a little harder. I believe if unraid had this would be better. 

Link to post
9 hours ago, Tucubanito07 said:

If you have the right router probably can, but if we can do it with unraid would be better as some routers don’t have all the bell and width Lea. Also, the amount of routers that have NAT Loopback/Hairpin is not a lot out there and also to have the limiting factor on the router as well probably a little harder. I believe if unraid had this would be better. 

then create a pfsense vm, route the dockers through it, and problem solved at zero additional cost.

Link to post
1 hour ago, 1812 said:

then create a pfsense vm, route the dockers through it, and problem solved at zero additional cost.

You are missing the point. Not every one is tech savvy. Also, that is not a bad way to do it. This is the forum for Feature Request not for trouble shooting and how to do it. However, thanks for your input I might consider to go that route if need more control on the bandwidth at home. 

Link to post
12 hours ago, Tucubanito07 said:

You are missing the point. Not every one is tech savvy. Also, that is not a bad way to do it. This is the forum for Feature Request not for trouble shooting and how to do it. However, thanks for your input I might consider to go that route if need more control on the bandwidth at home. 

so, 2 thoughts:

 

1: why would they create this when other solutions are possible? Especially when there are other features that are more important to develop? This is a low priority, which leads to the next thought-

 

2: Even if they decided to implement this, it could be 6 months or more until it arrives. yes,  this is the "feature request" subforum, but that doesn't mean a valid workaround can't be posted to help you and other uses out in the meantime. If you take the time to look at a few other threads, this type of discourse is commonly found.

Link to post
1 hour ago, 1812 said:

so, 2 thoughts:

 

1: why would they create this when other solutions are possible? Especially when there are other features that are more important to develop? This is a low priority, which leads to the next thought-

 

2: Even if they decided to implement this, it could be 6 months or more until it arrives. yes,  this is the "feature request" subforum, but that doesn't mean a valid workaround can't be posted to help you and other uses out in the meantime. If you take the time to look at a few other threads, this type of discourse is commonly found.

Answer for your two thoughts. 
 

1. They could create this to make it easier for users to control their bandwidth on dockers and VM. Not only that, but that would set them in another pedestals for users trying to figure out what OS to go with. Example, VM ware has the ability to limit per port level. Obviously, that is a different product but I hope you get what I am trying to say. Also, unraid would be a better option for users looking for something like this. I  don’t think Freenas has this feature either soy raid would gain more ustomers because of this feature. I completely understand that there is probably better project to work on but that’s why we the user come to this sub forum for Features request. 
 

2. Any amount of time taken is better than no time taken to see if this is possible. So if it takes 6 month for this to be implemented, than awesome. But if no one ask for it then unraid would never work on it because no one is asking for it. Furthermore, on my last comment I even said thank you for giving a workaround. Which I really appreciate. 
 

Thank you again for giving your input and also for been friendly and not a d!ck about it. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Tucubanito07 said:

. They could create this to make it easier for users to control their bandwidth on dockers and VM. Not only that, but that would set them in another pedestals for users trying to figure out what OS to go with. Example, VM ware has the ability to limit per port level. Obviously, that is a different product but I hope you get what I am trying to say. Also, unraid would be a better option for users looking for something like this. I  don’t think Freenas has this feature either soy raid would gain more ustomers because of this feature. I completely understand that there is probably better project to work on but that’s why we the user come to this sub forum for Features request.

you are trying awfully hard to justify a really niche request since it has never had any real majority of voices behind it in all the time that dockers and vm's have been incorporated into unRaid. By your logic, Frenas doesn't have a cappuccino making program written into the code, so if unRaid did that, they'd gain more users because of this feature. I'm being facetious but it illustrates the point. Uniqueness does always directly equate to value proposition.

 

 

1 hour ago, Tucubanito07 said:

2. Any amount of time taken is better than no time taken to see if this is possible. So if it takes 6 month for this to be implemented, than awesome. But if no one ask for it then unraid would never work on it because no one is asking for it. Furthermore, on my last comment I even said thank you for giving a workaround. Which I really appreciate. 

 

yes I recognize that you thanked me. But you also said this wasn't the place for alternative suggestions to the problem, which it actually has been.

 

at this point there is no further need for discussion. it was requested, a work around was presented as either a permanent alternative or something usable in the duration before inclusion. it's up to everyone else to ask for it too. 

 

As a side note, I asked for multiple cache pools in February 2017. there is at least one request predating it in October 2015. we are now at the point that it is thankfully being released in the next version of unRaid.  I recognize it was a major request and was happy to have 4 pages of support and have the dev's work hard to implement it. This further demonstrates the need and appropriateness of having workarounds while things are considered.

Link to post
  • 4 months later...
  • 4 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.