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 _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
