toad wrote: > And there are proposals to deal with this, such as putting in searches > first unless searches make up more than X% of the total. Or putting one > transfer block in, then filling the rest up with searches, unless there > are no transfer blocks or the searches are urgent, in which case we send > a packet full of searches.
OK, I'll look into implementing one of these. > In both cases these messages are supposed to be before the data blocks. > And having to wait behind many very large messages will increase latency > significantly. I still don't see how it affects latency - we can't finish processing the CHK until all the parts have arrived, regardless of what order they arrive in. Cheers, Michael
