quota's question
Moderator: Moderators
Re: quota's question
just got home and saw the post. pretty well the quickest fixes i've seen on a project. good work
Re: quota's question
Err..., thanks. Looks like my one line message took me a few hours to type and post. 
Re: quota's question
Thank you Eric for the great work, I really like your firmware.
I would like to let you know I kept searching online for a firmware that has the option to limit the bandwidth usage for WRT54G and has a quota so your firmware comes up with option of quota on the uploads and downloads. I am very interested in how to add quota combined togather (upload and download).
Is the quota patch installed already, if yes in the time being if I would like to apply quota for 192.168.1.101 host, are these right commands to use to limit 20G:
iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.101 -p any --dport any -m quota --quota 21474836480 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j DROP
and how to protect it in case of power lost? as well as how to reset it every month?
Would are you planning to add the quota combined as part of the next release or version?
I would like to let you know I kept searching online for a firmware that has the option to limit the bandwidth usage for WRT54G and has a quota so your firmware comes up with option of quota on the uploads and downloads. I am very interested in how to add quota combined togather (upload and download).
Is the quota patch installed already, if yes in the time being if I would like to apply quota for 192.168.1.101 host, are these right commands to use to limit 20G:
iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.101 -p any --dport any -m quota --quota 21474836480 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j DROP
and how to protect it in case of power lost? as well as how to reset it every month?
Would are you planning to add the quota combined as part of the next release or version?
Re: quota's question
The Gargoyle implementation of quotas doesn't use the iptables quota match module --- there's a program that monitors byte counters on certain rules and inserts restrictions if they go above a certain point.
There's currently no easy way for you to implement the combined quota match on a WRT54GL, because the iptables quota match module doesn't currently work with the 2.4 kernel (which is what is necessary for that router).
I'm not sure if combined quotas will make it into the next release or not. Right now my priorities are wireless bridging (which I made a TON of progress on this weekend) & wireless survey. I was hoping to have these implemented six months ago... so, needless to say, I'm a little anxious to finally get these done.
The quota code is basically a giant mess right now -- it works, but it's ugly. I really should have thought through the implementation a bit better before doing things the way I did. There's a bunch of stuff I want to clean up there, including the implementation of combined quotas, but haven't gotten around to yet. I need to find some time to clean all of it up, but because there's a lot to do, I'm putting it off until I actually have some time to devote to it.
If you really want to get this working, your best bet is to mess with the restricter code (checkout gargoyle from the svn and edit trunk/package/restricter-gargoyle/src/restricter.c), or figure out how to get the quota match module to build for the 2.4 kernel. I'll warn you: the restricter code is ugly, though there should be plenty of comments. If you have specific questions about it, you can post them here, and I'll try to answer quickly.
There's currently no easy way for you to implement the combined quota match on a WRT54GL, because the iptables quota match module doesn't currently work with the 2.4 kernel (which is what is necessary for that router).
I'm not sure if combined quotas will make it into the next release or not. Right now my priorities are wireless bridging (which I made a TON of progress on this weekend) & wireless survey. I was hoping to have these implemented six months ago... so, needless to say, I'm a little anxious to finally get these done.
The quota code is basically a giant mess right now -- it works, but it's ugly. I really should have thought through the implementation a bit better before doing things the way I did. There's a bunch of stuff I want to clean up there, including the implementation of combined quotas, but haven't gotten around to yet. I need to find some time to clean all of it up, but because there's a lot to do, I'm putting it off until I actually have some time to devote to it.
If you really want to get this working, your best bet is to mess with the restricter code (checkout gargoyle from the svn and edit trunk/package/restricter-gargoyle/src/restricter.c), or figure out how to get the quota match module to build for the 2.4 kernel. I'll warn you: the restricter code is ugly, though there should be plenty of comments. If you have specific questions about it, you can post them here, and I'll try to answer quickly.
Re: quota's question
Thanks Eric for the explanation, my personal opinion that no one managed to get the quota part except you and I think it has high demand on the quota, so I guess it will beneficiary to you and us to have a quota working on these routers.
Re: quota's question
Congratulations’ Eric for the new wireless fix, hopefully you will have some time to look to the quota portion.
I wish if I could help but I am not good in coding
BTW, great work.
I wish if I could help but I am not good in coding
BTW, great work.
Re: quota's question
Haha, just found this thread after you said that others requested quotas.
I'm just posting to let you know that I use it as well, and it really is a nice feature to have (particularly combined up/down, or combined IP's, but I know that you said it was difficult). Awesome work though! I've never seen someone update so quickly.
I'm just posting to let you know that I use it as well, and it really is a nice feature to have (particularly combined up/down, or combined IP's, but I know that you said it was difficult). Awesome work though! I've never seen someone update so quickly.
-
uncle john
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:27 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: quota's question
I'm including this comment in the hope that it will encourage others to try out the excellent bandwidth quota feature and even more importantly report back on their experience. 
Gargoyle is Open Source. Your comments help improve the software.
Eric: Thanks again and congratulations for this excellent product. I really appreciate the bandwidth quota feature and have spent some time testing it against Netlimiter. The results have been very favorable and consistent. For me this is an outstanding result since I have tested a lot of software over the years and Gargoyle is the first (not counting CoovaAAA) that has come even close to comparing with Netlimiter. CoovaAAA does not really compare as you need to tally up session data manually to achieve a comparable result.
In fact in my instance Gargoyle appears to be even better than Netlimiter as the data are even closer to my ISP's data.
Gargoyle is Open Source. Your comments help improve the software.Eric: Thanks again and congratulations for this excellent product. I really appreciate the bandwidth quota feature and have spent some time testing it against Netlimiter. The results have been very favorable and consistent. For me this is an outstanding result since I have tested a lot of software over the years and Gargoyle is the first (not counting CoovaAAA) that has come even close to comparing with Netlimiter. CoovaAAA does not really compare as you need to tally up session data manually to achieve a comparable result.
In fact in my instance Gargoyle appears to be even better than Netlimiter as the data are even closer to my ISP's data.