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/
