From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Feb 11 11:40:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA05961 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:40:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA05951 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:40:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Received: from dbsys (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18]) by etinc.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA23570; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:37:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902111937.OAA23570@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:47:32 -0500 To: pam@polynet.lviv.ua From: Dennis Subject: Re: Bandwidth limiting/trafic shaping Cc: isp@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 09:38 AM 2/11/99 +0200, you wrote: >Hello everybody! > >Can someone comment about comparison of bandwidth limiting software like >dummynet or bwmgr from ET inc. and alternative queuing schemes like ALQ >with Class Based Queuing (CBQ)? All seem to provide similar effects but >which is preferable in what situation? > >If I'll get enough feedback I'll post summary. There are a lot of fancy names out there, but there is no evidence that the fanciest ones work any better. Ours is a physical limiter, kernel based with no additional interrupt overhead and can handle just about any level of traffic that the machine can handle without it. Our new HTML interface makes it easy to manage also. Others are free and may work just fine for you as well. :-) Dennis To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message