* Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?
2003-05-15 16:01 [LARTC] cbq vs htb? Griem, Hans T
@ 2003-05-15 17:00 ` Stef Coene
2003-05-15 17:17 ` Intercom - Roberto Ravetti
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stef Coene @ 2003-05-15 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?
2003-05-15 16:01 [LARTC] cbq vs htb? Griem, Hans T
2003-05-15 17:00 ` Stef Coene
@ 2003-05-15 17:17 ` Intercom - Roberto Ravetti
2003-05-15 18:13 ` Griem, Hans T
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Intercom - Roberto Ravetti @ 2003-05-15 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* RE: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?
2003-05-15 16:01 [LARTC] cbq vs htb? Griem, Hans T
2003-05-15 17:00 ` Stef Coene
2003-05-15 17:17 ` Intercom - Roberto Ravetti
@ 2003-05-15 18:13 ` Griem, Hans T
2003-05-15 18:26 ` Stef Coene
2003-05-22 21:11 ` Stef Coene
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Griem, Hans T @ 2003-05-15 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?
2003-05-15 16:01 [LARTC] cbq vs htb? Griem, Hans T
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-05-15 18:13 ` Griem, Hans T
@ 2003-05-15 18:26 ` Stef Coene
2003-05-22 21:11 ` Stef Coene
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stef Coene @ 2003-05-15 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?
2003-05-15 16:01 [LARTC] cbq vs htb? Griem, Hans T
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-05-15 18:26 ` Stef Coene
@ 2003-05-22 21:11 ` Stef Coene
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stef Coene @ 2003-05-22 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread