On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:29:24AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:25:08PM +0100, Toad wrote: > > We will have to keep the conventional bandwidth limiting anyway for > > those who need to throttle their downlink. > > Well, if they are effectively throttling their uplink, then except for > requests made by them, this will also throttle their downlink.
Indeed. I agree that bwlimiting on downlink should be a minority thing. > > > 90% of bwlimit start QueryReject'ing > > QRing everything? Yes. > > > 150% of bwlimit conventional bwlimit set to around this > > I would say 110%, bit its debatable > > > 200% of bwlimit start rejecting connections > > I would say 120%, but its debatable I will make them all configurable. And independantly disablable. And there is some dispute over the low level limiting fudge factor, so I will make that configurable too. And I will implement an optional inbound bw measurement and queryreject mechanism. Is all this acceptable? > > 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
