From: "Griem, Hans T" <hans.t.griem@boeing.com>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 18:13:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-105302249204110@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-lartc-105301464526654@msgid-missing>
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/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-15 18:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
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 [this message]
2003-05-15 18:26 ` Stef Coene
2003-05-22 21:11 ` Stef Coene
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-105302249204110@msgid-missing \
--to=hans.t.griem@boeing.com \
--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.