Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages wha2tsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
First insure you're using a HQF version of CBWFQ.
I'm unsure you correctly understand how max-reserved-bandwidth worked. By default, pre-HQF would not allow you to allocate more than 75% of the bandwidth for the aggregate of the non-default classes. I believe it didn't matter how you actually allocated the non-default class bandwidth. (I.e. bps or percentage based didn't matter [although first versions of CBWFQ didn't offer percentage approach].)
I recall (?) HQF requires 1% for class-default. I.e. you might find you're unable to allocate more than 99% to the aggregate of non-default classes.
I also recall (?) with HQF max-reserved-bandwidth is ignored.
If you haven't actually allocated 100% of bandwidth to the aggregate of non-default classes (for example, your posting looks to have allocated 90%), you might find you don't need to do anything. If you want to be "neat", you could remove the max-reserved-bandwidth statements. You might also assign a bandwidth allocation to class-default.
If you want to "modernize" your CBWFQ, you could use percentages and/or remaining bandwidth instead of absolute bit rates.
BTW, doesn't apply to your posted policy, but FQ used in class-default operates differently between pre-HQF and HQF CBWFQ. Also with HQF, you can use FQ on other non-default classes.
