docs: Docs buffer overrun improvement

[erikmagkekse]

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)
• [x] 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

[sonarqubecloud[bot]]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[ReenigneArcher]

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

[gschintgen]

@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]

@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

[sonarqubecloud[bot]]

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

[codecov[bot]]

Bundle Report

Bundle size has no change :white_check_mark:

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

:white_check_mark: All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. :white_check_mark: Project coverage is 11.31%. Comparing base (b3ee60d) to head (d47c81b). :warning: Report is 102 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.