Hello Cef or..., Thanks for your input. Yes I am trying to figure out where/what/when these obscure CBQ options add value (ie., to conclude whether I should eliminate cbq from my "toolchest"). So I wonder since cbq uses the physical link per your response is it better suited to bandwidth control for (rf) applications with fluctuating link rates, etc? Torsten -----Original Message----- From: Stef Coene [mailto:stef.coene@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:00 AM To: Griem, Hans T; lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb? 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
