What I have told you, about the problem of ping delay with CBQ, is just with RF Conection.. Bye Roberto. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stef Coene" <stef.coene@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Griem, Hans T" <hans.t.griem@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [LARTC] cbq vs htb? > On Thursday 15 May 2003 20:13, Griem, Hans T wrote: > > 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? > In contrary. The bandwidth option in cbq should match the real physical link > bandwidth. I don't know how this is done on rf networks. > Comared this to htb. Htb uses a token bucket system to control the rate of > the data. This has nothing to do with the physical link. It just send data > at a certain controlled rate. > > I'm not a specialist in this. But I don't think I'm telling any lies :) > > Stef > > -- > > stef.coene@xxxxxxxxx > "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" > http://www.docum.org/ > #lartc @ irc.oftc.net > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ > >
