[CentOS] Traffic shaping on CentOS

Emmanuel Noobadmin centos.admin at gmail.com
Fri Sep 10 11:13:00 EDT 2010

On 9/10/10, John Doe <jdmls at yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Emmanuel Noobadmin <centos.admin at 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?
> http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/old/htbmeas1.htm

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.

More information about the CentOS mailing list