From: Guillaume Urbejtel <gurbejtel_test@m6.fr>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [LARTC] Traffic shaping : 2.6 better than 2.4
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:39:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41AC3FD7.1000707@m6.fr> (raw)
Dear all,
is the Traffic shaping part of the 2.6.x kernels works better than 2.4.x ?
Thanks !
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
reply other threads:[~2004-11-30 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=41AC3FD7.1000707@m6.fr \
--to=gurbejtel_test@m6.fr \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox