-----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-----

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Reply via email to