Looking at the intended fix, I think the repetitive "HTB is a little more resource demanding than than that of HFSC" is probably unnecessary (and possibly wrong to begin with?). HFSC uses many queues; HTB uses many qdiscs. I'm no network engineer, but I'm trying to determine which of these two is exactly more resource-intensive: More queues or more qdiscs? That's why I added the links to read in my previous comment <wink> <grin>
.page3="<dd><ul class=\"wide\"><li>HFSC - Hierarchical Fair Service Curve. Queues attached to an interface build a tree, thus each queue can have further child queues. Each queue can have a priority and a bandwidth assigned. Priority controls the time packets take to get sent out, while bandwidth effects throughput. HTB is a little more resource demanding than that of HFSC. </li><li>HTB - Hierarchical Token Bucket, it is a faster replacement for the CBQ qdisc in Linux but is more resource demanding than HFSC. HTB helps in controlling the use of the outbound bandwidth on a given link. HTB allows you to use one physical link to simulate several slower links and to send different kinds of traffic on different simulated links. HTB is useful for limiting a client's download/upload rates, preventing their monopolization of the available bandwidth.</li></ul></dd>";
_________________ "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep." - Robert Frost
"I am one of the noticeable ones - notice me" - Dale Frances McKenzie Bozzio
Joined: 31 Jul 2021 Posts: 2146 Location: All over YOUR webs
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:28 Post subject:
Were on it, I submited a patch to fix that page and others like it, but some other tables which are dynamically generated and sortable need some love too.
This is my fault, previously the tables had no thead/tbody, the browser auto inserts tbody only but this makes processing HTML marginally slower, I added thead/tbody but not everywhere.