On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 03:28:07AM -0400, Tavin Cole wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 02:53:07PM +1200, David McNab wrote: > > Seriously though - I'll have a look, but I'm a bit sceptical about the > > feasibility ot getting the required speed in a Java FProxy implementation. > > Maybe some hard-assed coding decisions might result in being able to stream > > MP3s (on a fine day, with the tongue angled 15 degress upward out the left > > of the mouth, and no other processes running), but then again, maybe not. As > > for MPEG streaming, I don't hold much hope. > > Where are you getting the idea that whatever observed slowness is due to > fproxy being written in Java? My suspects are 1) slow network and > 2) the fact that currently fproxy, even though it runs in the node, > makes an FNP connection to the node to do requests.
FProxy *is* slow, but only when it hasn't been used in a few minutes and the JVM or OS has filed its memory somewhere out of sight. After the first couple loads it's not significantly slower than a C server. -- "Is our system--was it invented by scientists?" "No. If scientists had invented it, they'd have tried it out first on hamsters." Mark Roberts | mjr at statesmean.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010617/7efbee6f/attachment.pgp>
