From: Stef Coene <stef.coene@docum.org>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LARTC] HTB or CBQ ?
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:15:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-103340132123960@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-lartc-103327810612944@msgid-missing>
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/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-30 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
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 [this message]
2002-09-30 15:26 ` Michael T. Babcock
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=marc-lartc-103340132123960@msgid-missing \
--to=stef.coene@docum.org \
--cc=lartc@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.