[LARTC] cbq vs htb?

[LARTC] cbq vs htb?

[Griem, Hans T]

Hello,

Does anyone know when one should use cbq versus (simpler more accurate) htb?  Specifically does cbq have added functionality that may be of interest to certain applications?  

from htb home>  Both CBQ and HTB help you to control the use of the
outbound bandwidth on a given link. Both allow you to use one physical link to simulate several slower links and to send different kinds of traffic on different
simulated links. In both cases, you have to specify how to divide the physical link into simulated links and how to decide which simulated link to use for a given
packet to be sent.   http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/manual/userg.htm

Thanks for any insight,

Torsten
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?

[Stef Coene]

On Thursday 15 May 2003 18:01, Griem, Hans T wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone know when one should use cbq versus (simpler more accurate)
> htb?  Specifically does cbq have added functionality that may be of
> interest to certain applications?
>
> from htb home>  Both CBQ and HTB help you to control the use of the
> outbound bandwidth on a given link. Both allow you to use one physical link
> to simulate several slower links and to send different kinds of traffic on
> different simulated links. In both cases, you have to specify how to divide
> the physical link into simulated links and how to decide which simulated
> link to use for a given packet to be sent.  
> http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/manual/userg.htm
>
> Thanks for any insight,

- Cbq uses the physical link situation to caculate the rate.  Example : if you 
want to send 1mbit on a 10mbit you need an idle time of 90% on the link.  
This can be a problem if you want to shape on ppp connection that can have a 
different link bandwidth.
- Htb is better documented (at least I have a better understanding of htb).
- Htb is active maintained.
- Cbq has some obscure options.  And it's not always clear what they do.

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/

Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?

[Intercom - Roberto Ravetti]

What I have told you, about the problem of ping delay with CBQ, is just with
RF Conection..

Bye
Roberto.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stef Coene" <stef.coene@docum.org>
To: "Griem, Hans T" <hans.t.griem@boeing.com>
Cc: <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?


> On Thursday 15 May 2003 20:13, Griem, Hans T wrote:
> > Hello Cef or...,
> >
> > Thanks for your input. Yes I am trying to figure out where/what/when
these
> > obscure CBQ options add value (ie., to conclude whether I should
eliminate
> > cbq from my "toolchest").  So I wonder since cbq uses the physical link
per
> > your response is it better suited to bandwidth control for (rf)
> > applications with fluctuating link rates, etc?
> In contrary.  The bandwidth option in cbq should match the real physical
link
> bandwidth.  I don't know how this is done on rf networks.
> Comared this to htb.  Htb uses a token bucket system to control the rate
of
> the data.  This has nothing to do with the physical link.  It just send
data
> at a certain controlled rate.
>
> I'm not a specialist in this.  But I don't think I'm telling any lies :)
>
> 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/
>
>


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

RE: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?

[Griem, Hans T]

Hello Cef or...,

Thanks for your input. Yes I am trying to figure out where/what/when these obscure CBQ options add value (ie., to conclude whether I should eliminate cbq from my "toolchest").  So I wonder since cbq uses the physical link per your response is it better suited to bandwidth control for (rf) applications with fluctuating link rates, etc?  

Torsten

-----Original Message-----
From: Stef Coene [mailto:stef.coene@docum.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:00 AM
To: Griem, Hans T; lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Subject: Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?


On Thursday 15 May 2003 18:01, Griem, Hans T wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone know when one should use cbq versus (simpler more accurate)
> htb?  Specifically does cbq have added functionality that may be of
> interest to certain applications?
>
> from htb home>  Both CBQ and HTB help you to control the use of the
> outbound bandwidth on a given link. Both allow you to use one physical link
> to simulate several slower links and to send different kinds of traffic on
> different simulated links. In both cases, you have to specify how to divide
> the physical link into simulated links and how to decide which simulated
> link to use for a given packet to be sent.  
> http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/manual/userg.htm
>
> Thanks for any insight,

- Cbq uses the physical link situation to caculate the rate.  Example : if you 
want to send 1mbit on a 10mbit you need an idle time of 90% on the link.  
This can be a problem if you want to shape on ppp connection that can have a 
different link bandwidth.
- Htb is better documented (at least I have a better understanding of htb).
- Htb is active maintained.
- Cbq has some obscure options.  And it's not always clear what they do.

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/

Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?

[Stef Coene]

On Thursday 15 May 2003 20:13, Griem, Hans T wrote:
> Hello Cef or...,
>
> Thanks for your input. Yes I am trying to figure out where/what/when these
> obscure CBQ options add value (ie., to conclude whether I should eliminate
> cbq from my "toolchest").  So I wonder since cbq uses the physical link per
> your response is it better suited to bandwidth control for (rf)
> applications with fluctuating link rates, etc?
In contrary.  The bandwidth option in cbq should match the real physical link 
bandwidth.  I don't know how this is done on rf networks.
Comared this to htb.  Htb uses a token bucket system to control the rate of 
the data.  This has nothing to do with the physical link.  It just send data 
at a certain controlled rate.

I'm not a specialist in this.  But I don't think I'm telling any lies :)

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/

Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?

[Stef Coene]

On Thursday 15 May 2003 19:17, Intercom - Roberto Ravetti wrote:
> What I have told you, about the problem of ping delay with CBQ, is just
> with RF Conection..
I don't know how a RF connections is physical seen by the kernel.  Htb does 
not care about the physical link so maybe better suited to shape on a RF 
connection.

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/