On Tuesday 05 May 2009 07:16:36 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag 04 Mai 2009 19:59:15 schrieb Arne Babenhauserheide: > > Am Montag 04 Mai 2009 17:33:30 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > > > 3. Add a 'pause' feature. (131 votes) > > > > > > Remarkably high ranking, I wonder what proportion of our users use online > > > games? > > > > Or with other filesharing services (short lived torrents, downloading in > > Gnutella) or with graphics editing or video editing or just plain compiling > > the new packages or haggling with a completely overloaded E-Mail program... > > I just thought about this the other way round: When do I want freenet to use > my full CPU power? > > I got to > > 1) When I do something which doesn't need much resources, for example writing > or coding. > > 2) When I browse freenet myself. > > 3) When I'm not at my computer and no compiles are running. > > So a nicer solution might be to have > > a) a hard pause: stop hard until disabled again, and > > b) a soft pause: only use less resources while the user is active - except if > he's firing off manual freenet requests (webinterface). > > The soft pause could for example use a screensaver as s...@home does to detect > inactivity. > > The modes could even be turned around: Soft pause as default mode, so freenet > is only active while my computer has little other load. > > The problem with soft pause as default mode could be that users who shut down > their computers as soon as they leave them would contribute little to the > computer, so I think we can discard it. If someone wants it, he should have to > enable it everytime he starts freenet - with this it's only viable for long > running nodes.
Isn't using a reasonably low scheduling priority enough? And we already do that!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
