On Wednesday 19 March 2008 18:02, Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:32, Michael Rogers wrote:
> >> On Mar 19 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >>> Actually, I'm not sure we're finished here. What we really want to
> >
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:32, Michael Rogers wrote:
> On Mar 19 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Actually, I'm not sure we're finished here. What we really want to do, to
> > minimise the chance of a timeout, is to alternate between the active
> > transfers. With the code you implemented, if
On Mar 19 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Actually, I'm not sure we're finished here. What we really want to do, to
> minimise the chance of a timeout, is to alternate between the active
> transfers. With the code you implemented, if a block is in store, all of
> its packet transmits will be que
On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:32, Michael Rogers wrote:
>> On Mar 19 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>> Actually, I'm not sure we're finished here. What we really want to
>>> do, to
>>> minimise the chance of a timeout, is to alternate betwe
On Monday 17 March 2008 15:30, Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> > Not convinced by _abandonedTickets:
> >
> > 1 new ticket
> > 2 new ticket
> > 3 new ticket
> > 4 new ticket
> > 2 times out
> > 3 times out
> > space to send (1)
> > 1-2 = -1 so we d
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 18:02, Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:32, Michael Rogers wrote:
> >> On Mar 19 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >>> Actually, I'm not sure we're finished here. What we really want to
> >
On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:32, Michael Rogers wrote:
>> On Mar 19 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>> Actually, I'm not sure we're finished here. What we really want to
>>> do, to
>>> minimise the chance of a timeout, is to alternate betwe
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:32, Michael Rogers wrote:
> On Mar 19 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Actually, I'm not sure we're finished here. What we really want to do, to
> > minimise the chance of a timeout, is to alternate between the active
> > transfers. With the code you implemented, if
On Mar 19 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Actually, I'm not sure we're finished here. What we really want to do, to
> minimise the chance of a timeout, is to alternate between the active
> transfers. With the code you implemented, if a block is in store, all of
> its packet transmits will be que
On Monday 17 March 2008 15:30, Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> > Not convinced by _abandonedTickets:
> >
> > 1 new ticket
> > 2 new ticket
> > 3 new ticket
> > 4 new ticket
> > 2 times out
> > 3 times out
> > space to send (1)
> > 1-2 = -1 so we d
On Mar 15, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Not convinced by _abandonedTickets:
>
> 1 new ticket
> 2 new ticket
> 3 new ticket
> 4 new ticket
> 2 times out
> 3 times out
> space to send (1)
> 1-2 = -1 so we don't send
> space to send (2)
> 4-2 = 2 so we do send 4
>
> We could avoid thi
On Mar 15, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Not convinced by _abandonedTickets:
>
> 1 new ticket
> 2 new ticket
> 3 new ticket
> 4 new ticket
> 2 times out
> 3 times out
> space to send (1)
> 1-2 = -1 so we don't send
> space to send (2)
> 4-2 = 2 so we do send 4
>
> We could avoid thi
12 matches
Mail list logo
