On Monday 30 September 2002 17:26, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> Stef Coene wrote:
> >And one of the mose convincing arguments to me : htb is actively
> > maintained. If there is a bug or performance problem, it will get fixed.
>
> And, being newer code that many of us have looked at, patches / fixes
> will probably flow to the maintainer faster than CBQ ones.
>
> BTW, how many people are using the patched SFQ (ESFQ?) these days, and
> how stable is it?
I used it and it was stable. I'm going to switch over to kernel 2.5. Will
the efsq patch apply?
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/
