Why don't we use the download accelerator
(http://www.lidan.com/) methodology and make simultaneous connections to
the top 4 sites as discovered by ping? :)
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 5:23 PM -0800 2000/1/21, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>
> > You don't even need to modify the protocol. Just write a small
> > tcp program that times the 3 way handshake on open to all the
> > servers, take the one with the sortest time and spit that out
> > for the user to stuff in his cvsupfile.
>
> Ahh, yes. But, the latency between the "master" server and the
> "slave" servers does not necessarily equal the latency between the
> cvsup client and the master or slave servers, and you want to be able
> to make intelligent choices based on more than *just* the network
> latency between the cvsup client and the servers -- if one is very
> close, but that one happens to be cvsup1 and is overloaded most of
> the time, then you want to be able to choose other servers that might
> not be quite so close, but which are much more lightly loaded.
>
>
> Small numbers of "test" data packets tell you very little about
> what the overall network performance is going to be like between any
> two sites -- you may have lots of highly bursty traffic on one route
> and a slightly higher latency but much more consistent level of
> traffic on another route.
>
> You may have small packets flying through a particular network,
> but when you go to actually transfer any data, you find that you get
> huge percentages of drops on large packets.
>
> You may have a very lightly loaded 64KB line between you and your
> first choice which shows up fantastically well on the "test" (both
> low latency and low quantity of drops), but which starts to suck huge
> boulders when it comes to actually transferring data.
>
>
> There are a lot of factors to be considered, and it seems to me
> that the best thing is to have some more intelligence in the client,
> so that it can do at least a first approximation as to network
> latency and available bandwidth between it and the various servers,
> and then this could be augmented by additional information that could
> be provided by cooperating servers that feed each other information
> about the status of the overall network from their perspective,
> etc....
>
> --
> These are my opinions and should not be taken as official Skynet policy
> _________________________________________________________________________
> |o| Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o|
> |o| Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o|
> |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/726.93.11 B-1140 Brussels |o|
> |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o|
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside.
> Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are.
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message