From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rick Goh" Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:48:01 +0000 Subject: [LARTC] PRIO, TBF, RED, WRR, CSZ, .... MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01E2_01C0AF0A.6919DBD0" Message-Id: List-Id: To: lartc@vger.kernel.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01E2_01C0AF0A.6919DBD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I would like to show CBQ works better at controlling bandwidth than = PRIO, TBF, RED, WRR, CSZ, etc. Is it possible to stream 3 flows of controlled bandwidth at say 5, 30, = 65 Mbps from 1 server to 3 computers and then see how well each queueing = discipline works?? I have tried only CBQ and it worked perfectly. BUT, i have not tried the = rest. Apparently i am not sure how to set up the other disciplines and = it seems like they require CBQ as parent in order to work. Is this = true??? Regards. ------=_NextPart_000_01E2_01C0AF0A.6919DBD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

I would like to show CBQ works better = at=20 controlling bandwidth than PRIO, TBF, RED, WRR, CSZ, etc.

Is it possible to stream 3 flows of = controlled=20 bandwidth at say 5, 30, 65 Mbps from 1 server to 3 computers and then = see how=20 well each queueing discipline works??

I have tried only CBQ and it worked perfectly. BUT, i have not = tried=20 the rest. Apparently i am not sure how to set up the other disciplines = and it=20 seems like they require CBQ as parent in order to work. Is this=20 true???

Regards.

------=_NextPart_000_01E2_01C0AF0A.6919DBD0-- _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/