From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stef Coene Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:18:09 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ? Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: lartc@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 29 September 2002 07:40, brt_informatics@wlink.com.np wrote: > Hi.. > I've tried both (HTB & CBQ) the queuing descpliens and I think HTB is > more efficient than CBQ. But i think HTB is still in beta. I just want > to know if I can go for HTB right away. I mean, is it stable? I'm > trying to implement it in my company and thus stability and performance > is big issue in this case. > Please correct me if i'm wrong. It's not because cbq is in the kernel for a long time that it is stable. I= =20 know more bugs/problems with cbq then with htb. I think htb is better because : - design - less obscure options - actively maintained - faster - included in kernel 2.4.20 :) Just my 2=A2 Stef --=20 stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.oftc.net _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/