jbland
10-23-2004, 11:21 PM
This is more of a feature request for V3, but I would like to have something similar to HTB for bandwidth control. For those that don't know, HTB has bursting which allows one to set min and max bandwidth for upload and download. I currently use CBQ at a couple of my sites, but use HTB at the NOC. Here are some observations between the two methods. Because of the strengths of HTB, mikrotik has even implemented into their OS.
HTB Pros versus CBQ
1. Bursting - Very similar to what DSL and Cable systems do. This is the space we all compete against so we should have the same capabilities.
2. Handles bandwidth more efficiently - I have a lot more users on a T1 using HTB than CBQ. The users are not that different it's just HTB seems to share the bandwidth a lot better and only takes a small hit on latency. Where as CBQ seems to drop the bandwidth way down or I get huge latency spikes showing that it doesn't level things off too well.
3. HTB has a higher accuracy on bandwidth calculations. When I throttle 1.5M using HTB I get 1.5. CBQ tends to be all over the place. When I researched this I found that its because of the way CBQ calculates available bandwidth.
4. HTB is now included in the linux distro as of 2.4.20
5. HTB is well documented and active
HTB Con's
1. Doesn't scale as well as CBQ beyond 1000 classes. This is not really a problem for me because that would mean I would have more than 1000 users and I'm sure I could use 2nd bandwidth manager by then :) but for some this may be a problem
I'm sure you'll probably make the best choice for bandwidth manager, but if I were you I would consider HTB as an alternative if not a replacement for CBQ. The scripting could be very similar as it seems you use a parser to write the "real" rules behind the scene's and what the user sees is just a front end scripting language.
I wanted to add that I do love the added features in Star-OS over time. Adding a range in CBQ was great, 1 line and now I have bandwidth control for an entire subnet. I use to write or hack my way through solutions and I wanted to say thanks for all the time you have saved me in not having to do everything myself and allowing me to focus on my business versus software development.
HTB Pros versus CBQ
1. Bursting - Very similar to what DSL and Cable systems do. This is the space we all compete against so we should have the same capabilities.
2. Handles bandwidth more efficiently - I have a lot more users on a T1 using HTB than CBQ. The users are not that different it's just HTB seems to share the bandwidth a lot better and only takes a small hit on latency. Where as CBQ seems to drop the bandwidth way down or I get huge latency spikes showing that it doesn't level things off too well.
3. HTB has a higher accuracy on bandwidth calculations. When I throttle 1.5M using HTB I get 1.5. CBQ tends to be all over the place. When I researched this I found that its because of the way CBQ calculates available bandwidth.
4. HTB is now included in the linux distro as of 2.4.20
5. HTB is well documented and active
HTB Con's
1. Doesn't scale as well as CBQ beyond 1000 classes. This is not really a problem for me because that would mean I would have more than 1000 users and I'm sure I could use 2nd bandwidth manager by then :) but for some this may be a problem
I'm sure you'll probably make the best choice for bandwidth manager, but if I were you I would consider HTB as an alternative if not a replacement for CBQ. The scripting could be very similar as it seems you use a parser to write the "real" rules behind the scene's and what the user sees is just a front end scripting language.
I wanted to add that I do love the added features in Star-OS over time. Adding a range in CBQ was great, 1 line and now I have bandwidth control for an entire subnet. I use to write or hack my way through solutions and I wanted to say thanks for all the time you have saved me in not having to do everything myself and allowing me to focus on my business versus software development.