On 2009-01-17 19:26 +0000 (Sat), Thomas DuBuisson wrote: > I've heard of this before and at the time advocated SCTP - not sure if > that's a good option here.
Oops...should have included this in the last reply. Anyway, standard TCP extensions for Long Fat Pipes work well, and are a great solution. They're not just implemented as broadly as one would hope, yet, partically due to the usual network effects issue (clients don't have them because many servers don't, and vice versa) and partially because there's little demand in the U.S., the center of the world for software development, because it's still sort of a second-world as far as broadband deployment goes: most people still have connections supporting only a few megabits per second or less. (For comparison, in Japan, 45% of Internet users have fiber connections, typically at 100 Mbps or 1 Gbps, and of the 42% beyond that that have DSL, most of them are in the range of 12 Mbps to 50 Mbps. That means that something like 80% of Japan's Internet users have a link at least four times faster than the rate at which they can download from a U.S. server without TCP extensions for LFPs.) cjs -- Curt Sampson <[email protected]> +81 90 7737 2974 Functional programming in all senses of the word: http://www.starling-software.com _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
