On 9/10/10, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Emmanuel Noobadmin centos.admin@gmail.com
The oddity here is from my reading so far, CBQ is an older queue discipline compared to HTB and importantly having more archaic syntax. Or am I mistaken?
Just to confirm we're understanding the same thing. My reading of that link is that HTB is a newer qdisc and offers more precise control over bandwidth, the drawback being slightly more computationally intensive and therefore higher chances of delay compared to CBQ.
Digging around, a newer page dated 2002 http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/htb3perf/cbqhtb3perf.htm seems to conclude similarly except it provides more precise data which I understand to mean that the "new" HTB implementation performs better with lesser (<400) active classes while CBQ does better with more active classes.
Based on that information, in my situation where bandwidth control is a primary consideration (client has a limited budget for bandwidth but wants certain services prioritized) and the system in question has processing capacity to spare, HTB would appear be the better solution since I only have a few active class.
Please correct me if I'm reading those pages and data wrongly.