Hi.. I've tried both (HTB & CBQ) the queuing descpliens and I think HTB is more efficient than CBQ. But i think HTB is still in beta. I just want to know if I can go for HTB right away. I mean, is it stable? I'm trying to implement it in my company and thus stability and performance is big issue in this case. Please correct me if i'm wrong. Thank you very much, Bikrant
On Sunday 29 September 2002 07:40, brt_informatics@wlink.com.np wrote: > Hi.. > I've tried both (HTB & CBQ) the queuing descpliens and I think HTB is > more efficient than CBQ. But i think HTB is still in beta. I just want > to know if I can go for HTB right away. I mean, is it stable? I'm > trying to implement it in my company and thus stability and performance > is big issue in this case. > Please correct me if i'm wrong. It's not because cbq is in the kernel for a long time that it is stable. = I=20 know more bugs/problems with cbq then with htb. I think htb is better because : - design - less obscure options - actively maintained - faster - included in kernel 2.4.20 :) Just my 2=A2 Stef --=20 stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.oftc.net
Hi Stef, Please can you detail the arguments to use CBQ and HTB? Why HTB is better than CBQ? Which are the weakness of CBQ implementation which solved by HTB? Thank you, R. --- Stef Coene <stef.coene@docum.org> wrote: > On Sunday 29 September 2002 07:40, > brt_informatics@wlink.com.np wrote: > > Hi.. > > I've tried both (HTB & CBQ) the queuing descpliens > and I think HTB is > > more efficient than CBQ. But i think HTB is still > in beta. I just want > > to know if I can go for HTB right away. I mean, is > it stable? I'm > > trying to implement it in my company and thus > stability and performance > > is big issue in this case. > > Please correct me if i'm wrong. > It's not because cbq is in the kernel for a long > time that it is stable. I > know more bugs/problems with cbq then with htb. > > I think htb is better because : > - design > - less obscure options > - actively maintained > - faster > - included in kernel 2.4.20 :) > > Just my 2¢ > > 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/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Monday 30 September 2002 12:52, SERBAN Rares wrote: > Hi Stef, > > Please can you detail the arguments to use CBQ and > HTB? Why HTB is better than CBQ? Which are the > weakness of CBQ implementation which solved by HTB? For the performance difference, take a look at the htb homepage. Devik d= id=20 some tests with both htb2, htb3 and cbq. Cbq has a weak theory background. It works by calculating the idle time = of=20 the link. But the only input we have to calculate this is the number of=20 packets the NIC send. So you have to know your NIC bandwidth, the averag= e=20 packet size, and some other obscure options (allot). If you have differe= nt=20 packet size or a changing NIC bandwidth (pppoe, pptp), you can get strang= e=20 results with cbq. Htb on the other hand is based on tbf. It does not need to know NIC=20 bandwidth, nor average packet size. It has a total different approach to= do=20 traffic shaping. I refer to the htb homepage for more info about the the= ory=20 background of htb. And one of the mose convincing arguments to me : htb is actively maintain= ed. =20 If there is a bug or performance problem, it will get fixed. Stef=20 --=20 stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.oftc.net