From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Intercom - Roberto Ravetti" Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 17:17:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb? Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org 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" To: "Griem, Hans T" Cc: 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/