-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 16 June 2003 17:18, Griem, Hans T wrote: > Hello Thilo, > > What did you find superior with CBQ-wondershaper over HTB-wondershaper? We > have not been using wondershaper specifically but our simple tests so far > seem to show that htb is much easier to configure for a given target shape > (i.,e accurate) compared to CBQ. I did not set up the cbq wondershaper, my father actually set the cbq-wondershaper respectively the htb-wondershaper up, and the ping latencies while large uploads were considerably better when using the cbq version. I haven't run any large-scaled tests, but this is the experience I had in practice. - Thilo Schulz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+7ec7Zx4hBtWQhl4RAohkAJ4sKA6j0u8g5RdOh/IDtLeDWAoC+gCfdlIw lvirBt6tswiWrggv/vzxZHA= =SPWK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
