Stefan Reich (Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:14:55AM +0200): > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Anderson" <chris at excon.charm.net> > > > So, the equation becomes, for sufficiently small data values, compress > > > time + const xfer time vs. const xfer time. > > > > > > Of course, once again, feel free to prove me wrong. > > > > > > > No, I agree. In addition, there is usually a several K window size in > > software based compressors, so the const xfer time is especially true in > > that case. > > Yeah, for the case of very small data packets I agree too.
but we're not talking about compressing the packets, but about compressing the whole files before inserting them. > But I still figure there are many cases where compression would make sense > (large data packets, relatively low bandwidth). And CPU time _is_ cheap, > even if a Freenet is supposed to be a non-intrusive background process. > > It's your decision whether this justifies compressing _any_ data that is > sent through Freenet... I vote for it anyway. > > -Stefan > > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl -- moritz In the beginning was the word, and the word was content-type: text/plain _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl >From - Mon Apr 30 02:05:49 2001 Return-Path: <devl-admin at freenetproject.org> Received: from hawk.freenetproject.org (postfix@[4.18.42.11]) by funky.danky.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA10571 for <danello at danky.com>; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:15:23 -0400
