* Re: [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ?
2002-09-29 5:40 [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ? brt_informatics
@ 2002-09-29 9:18 ` Stef Coene
2002-09-30 10:52 ` SERBAN Rares
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Stef Coene @ 2002-09-29 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
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
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¢
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ?
2002-09-29 5:40 [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ? brt_informatics
2002-09-29 9:18 ` Stef Coene
@ 2002-09-30 10:52 ` SERBAN Rares
2002-09-30 15:15 ` Stef Coene
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: SERBAN Rares @ 2002-09-30 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
Hi Stef,
Please can you detail the arguments to use CBQ and
HTB? Why HTB is better than CBQ? Which are the
weakness of CBQ implementation which solved by HTB?
Thank you,
R.
--- Stef Coene <stef.coene@docum.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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¢
>
> 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/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ?
2002-09-29 5:40 [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ? brt_informatics
2002-09-29 9:18 ` Stef Coene
2002-09-30 10:52 ` SERBAN Rares
@ 2002-09-30 15:15 ` Stef Coene
2002-09-30 15:26 ` Michael T. Babcock
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Stef Coene @ 2002-09-30 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
On Monday 30 September 2002 12:52, SERBAN Rares wrote:
> Hi Stef,
>
> Please can you detail the arguments to use CBQ and
> HTB? Why HTB is better than CBQ? Which are the
> weakness of CBQ implementation which solved by HTB?
For the performance difference, take a look at the htb homepage. Devik did
some tests with both htb2, htb3 and cbq.
Cbq has a weak theory background. It works by calculating the idle time of
the link. But the only input we have to calculate this is the number of
packets the NIC send. So you have to know your NIC bandwidth, the average
packet size, and some other obscure options (allot). If you have different
packet size or a changing NIC bandwidth (pppoe, pptp), you can get strange
results with cbq.
Htb on the other hand is based on tbf. It does not need to know NIC
bandwidth, nor average packet size. It has a total different approach to do
traffic shaping. I refer to the htb homepage for more info about the theory
background of htb.
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.
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ?
2002-09-29 5:40 [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ? brt_informatics
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-09-30 15:15 ` Stef Coene
@ 2002-09-30 15:26 ` Michael T. Babcock
2002-09-30 15:37 ` Stef Coene
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Michael T. Babcock @ 2002-09-30 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
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?
--
Michael T. Babcock
C.T.O., FibreSpeed Ltd.
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ?
2002-09-29 5:40 [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ? brt_informatics
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2002-09-30 15:26 ` Michael T. Babcock
@ 2002-09-30 15:37 ` Stef Coene
2002-10-01 12:56 ` Michael T. Babcock
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Stef Coene @ 2002-09-30 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ?
2002-09-29 5:40 [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ? brt_informatics
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2002-09-30 15:37 ` Stef Coene
@ 2002-10-01 12:56 ` Michael T. Babcock
2002-10-01 13:11 ` Robert Penz
2002-10-01 13:20 ` Michael T. Babcock
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Michael T. Babcock @ 2002-10-01 12:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
Vladimír Trebický wrote:
>I use ESFQ and it's stable and functional ;-) Really. Read my article about
>not setting perturb too small.
>
>
Yes, I saw that; its a good hint for SFQ as well (and it fixed some neat
oddities too).
Anyone else seen this one?
ping -n {remote host}
{ 6 second delay }
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=0 ttl%5 time=6sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=1 ttl%5 time=5sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=2 ttl%5 time=4sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=3 ttl%5 time=3sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=4 ttl%5 time=2sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=5 ttl%5 time=1sec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=6 ttl%5 time$2usec
64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=7 ttl%5 time%0usec
...
--
Michael T. Babcock
C.T.O., FibreSpeed Ltd.
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ?
2002-09-29 5:40 [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ? brt_informatics
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2002-10-01 12:56 ` Michael T. Babcock
@ 2002-10-01 13:11 ` Robert Penz
2002-10-01 13:20 ` Michael T. Babcock
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Robert Penz @ 2002-10-01 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Anyone else seen this one?
>
> ping -n {remote host}
> { 6 second delay }
> 64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=6sec
> 64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=5sec
> 64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=4sec
> 64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=3sec
> 64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=2sec
> 64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=1sec
> 64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=242usec
> 64 bytes from 216.168.105.33: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=250usec
> ...
suse linux? if so, reverse lookup doesn't work, for that ip.
- --
Regards,
Robert
- ----------------
Robert Penz
robert.penz AT outertech.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE9mZ7y8tTsQqJDUBMRAs+5AJ9lWrTDyCN8RA1MWwWXPazCoxkSrACgnrhC
xh2G6e1NzgmDzQlJI2qOfjs=
=ryCz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ?
2002-09-29 5:40 [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ? brt_informatics
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2002-10-01 13:11 ` Robert Penz
@ 2002-10-01 13:20 ` Michael T. Babcock
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Michael T. Babcock @ 2002-10-01 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
Robert Penz wrote:
>suse linux? if so, reverse lookup doesn't work, for that ip.
>
>
Note the 'ping -n' -- no reverse lookup being done.
--
Michael T. Babcock
C.T.O., FibreSpeed Ltd.
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread