On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:17:14AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:06:37PM +0100, Toad wrote: > > Maybe so, but Ian also wants to rip out the existing bandwidth limiting > > code, thus ensuring that we cannot give the user any reasonable idea of > > what bandwidth we will use. > > Only because I want to see whether the QR limiting is sufficiently > effective at regulating bandwidth usage, it would make everything much > simpler if it is - if not, we can reintroduce a simple version of > conventional bandwidth limiting.
We will have to keep the conventional bandwidth limiting anyway for those who need to throttle their downlink. And possibly for messages, if the network takes no notice of our squeals of pain (it doesn't now, it *should* under ngrouting... although it will always be a big issue with seednodes). Anyway, how about: 90% of bwlimit start QueryReject'ing 150% of bwlimit conventional bwlimit set to around this 200% of bwlimit start rejecting connections > > Anyway, I said on IRC last night that if you really wanted to keep the > lower-level limiting stuff it wasn't a big deal, but it would be better > if it turned out that we didn't need it. > > Ian. > > -- > Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ > Weblog http://slashdot.org/~sanity/journal -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
