Simo wrote:
#define UPLOAD 1000kbps
I've never used tcns/sim if that's what this is kbps means k bytes to
"normal" tc.
$low = class{ tbf (rate 300kbps, burst 1510B, mtu 1510B, limit
3000B); }
limit 3000B - not even enough for two packets (1500 mtu = 1514 to tc on
eth), wo
: Salim S I [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:26 PM
To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Subject: RE: [LARTC] PRIO and TBF is much better than HTB??
HTB's priority and PRIO qdisc are very different.
PRIO qdisc will definitely give better latency for your high priority traffic,
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your explanations. J I ´ve looked for an advantage of HTB
opposite the combination PRIO+TBF , because this combination seemed better
to me. But I´ve forgotten ;) that with HTB the unused Tokens can be
distributed fairly on the other classes, so that the unused Bandwidth can
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 4:37 PM
To: 'Salim S I'; lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Subject: RE: [LARTC] PRIO and TBF is much better than HTB??
Hi,
Thanks for your answer.
You are right concerning the PRIO QDisc, but which I did not understand
is that the combination (PRIO+TB
Hi,
Thanks for your answer.
You are right concerning the PRIO QDisc, but which I did not understand is
that the combination (PRIO+TBF) made a Shaping nearly exactly the same as
with HTB only with better latency. One sees this with the comparison of the
two following illustrations of my simulation
HTBs priority and PRIO qdisc are very different.
PRIO qdisc will definitely give better latency for your high priority
traffic, since the qdisc is designed for the purpose of priority. In
theory it will even starve the low priority traffic, if high prio
traffic is waiting to go out.
HTBs pr
