From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stef Coene Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:37:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ? Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org On Monday 30 September 2002 17:26, Michael T. Babcock wrote: > Stef Coene wrote: > >And one of the mose convincing arguments to me : htb is actively > > maintained. If there is a bug or performance problem, it will get fixed. > > And, being newer code that many of us have looked at, patches / fixes > will probably flow to the maintainer faster than CBQ ones. > > BTW, how many people are using the patched SFQ (ESFQ?) these days, and > how stable is it? I used it and it was stable. I'm going to switch over to kernel 2.5. Will the efsq patch apply? Stef -- 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/