Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb?

Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thursday 15 May 2003 18:01, Griem, Hans T wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone know when one should use cbq versus (simpler more accurate)
> htb?  Specifically does cbq have added functionality that may be of
> interest to certain applications?
>
> from htb home>  Both CBQ and HTB help you to control the use of the
> outbound bandwidth on a given link. Both allow you to use one physical link
> to simulate several slower links and to send different kinds of traffic on
> different simulated links. In both cases, you have to specify how to divide
> the physical link into simulated links and how to decide which simulated
> link to use for a given packet to be sent.  
> http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/manual/userg.htm
>
> Thanks for any insight,

- Cbq uses the physical link situation to caculate the rate.  Example : if you 
want to send 1mbit on a 10mbit you need an idle time of 90% on the link.  
This can be a problem if you want to shape on ppp connection that can have a 
different link bandwidth.
- Htb is better documented (at least I have a better understanding of htb).
- Htb is active maintained.
- Cbq has some obscure options.  And it's not always clear what they do.

Stef

-- 

stef.coene@xxxxxxxxx
 "Using Linux as bandwidth manager"
     http://www.docum.org/
     #lartc @ irc.oftc.net



[Index of Archives]     [LARTC Home Page]     [Netfilter]     [Netfilter Development]     [Network Development]     [Bugtraq]     [GCC Help]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Fedora Users]
  Powered by Linux