Skip to content

docs: Docs buffer overrun improvement #3986

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged

Conversation

erikmagkekse
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Just a small documentation improvement with example code how traffic shaping could be done on a OS Level.
I troubleshooted that issue for many hours, found out about this helpful page but didn't found any examples. I think that will be helpful for many other users too.

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Dependency update (updates to dependencies)
  • Documentation update (changes to documentation)
  • Repository update (changes to repository files, e.g. .github/...)

Checklist

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have added or updated the in code docstring/documentation-blocks for new or existing methods/components

Copy link

@erikmagkekse erikmagkekse changed the title Docs buffer overrun improvement docs: Docs buffer overrun improvement Jun 19, 2025
@ReenigneArcher
Copy link
Member

@gschintgen could you review this as you originally added this section to the docs?

Copy link
Member

@ReenigneArcher ReenigneArcher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have a few suggestions below to improve the spacing and syntax highlighting.

@gschintgen
Copy link
Contributor

@gschintgen could you review this as you originally added this section to the docs?

Sorry for the late reply. The traffic shaping commands look fine to me, though I'm by no means an expert on this. And it has been quite some time since I last played with tc. What I can say though is that they almost match 1:1 the commands I had in my local testing script.

But just to be sure: @erikmagkekse, you're having the buffer overruns with the current stable release? A few months ago the networking code has been modified in order to alleviate this type of issues. See #2803 for the whole discussion. (And also src/stream.cpp for the relevant code that has been changed in that PR)

@erikmagkekse
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gschintgen I will test it in a few days again without TC for you, but as my date posting this I was running the latest version to that time and had issues.

GPU Server@10Gbit <====> SteamDeck@1Gbit

erikmagkekse and others added 4 commits July 30, 2025 17:11
@ReenigneArcher ReenigneArcher force-pushed the docs-buffer-overrun-improvement branch from 4bc79a7 to d47c81b Compare July 30, 2025 21:11
Copy link

Please retry analysis of this Pull-Request directly on SonarQube Cloud

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 30, 2025

Bundle Report

Bundle size has no change ✅

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 30, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 11.31%. Comparing base (b3ee60d) to head (d47c81b).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3986   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   11.31%   11.31%           
=======================================
  Files          92       92           
  Lines       17572    17572           
  Branches     8240     8240           
=======================================
  Hits         1989     1989           
  Misses      13064    13064           
  Partials     2519     2519           
Flag Coverage Δ
Linux-AppImage 11.02% <ø> (ø)
Windows-AMD64 12.45% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

@ReenigneArcher ReenigneArcher merged commit eff88de into LizardByte:master Jul 30, 2025
47 of 48 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants