On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 23:04:19 +1100 Fog_Watch <db5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > HFSC appears to be the queueing discipline of choice for VOIP. In http://www.lartc.org/lartc.html it is stated that users of CBQ might suffer from the 'sendmail effect' - "which teaches us that any complex technology which doesn't come with documentation must be the best available." Purhaps I was suffering from 'sendmail effect' when considering HFSC. At http://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=27049#p27049 there is an interesting passage that compares HTB and HFSC, and states how the priority setting of HTB in effect decouples latency and bandwidth. Based on this and the standard documentation (http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/manual/userg.htm) I think I'll have a crack at HTB first. > >does that mean that the next best > solution would be HTB coupled with the newly updated > http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/? In addition to the above I've looked at: http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/ http://ace-host.stuart.id.au/russell/files/tc/tc-atm/ http://edseek.com/archives/2006/03/13/linux-qos-tc-and-accounting-for-atm-overhead/ I am none the wiser about what I do to make adsl-optimizer go. What I'm going to do is establish sub-optimal shaping (probably Shorewall) and then maybe optimise later. Interestingly, adsl-optimizer is now established under sourceforge (https://sourceforge.net/projects/adsl-optimizer/) Regards Fog_Watch. -- Lose wait. Get Gentoo. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
