On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Thursday 01 Sep 2011 15:29:35 Evan Daniel wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> >> I like this proposal :)
>> >>
>> >> Is the documentation on the math of how to get the random routing to
>> >> behave
On Thursday 01 Sep 2011 15:29:35 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> >> I like this proposal :)
> >>
> >> Is the documentation on the math of how to get the random routing to
> >> behave well sufficient? Let me know if it isn't. The MHMC routing math
>
On Thursday 01 Sep 2011 15:29:35 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
I like this proposal :)
Is the documentation on the math of how to get the random routing to
behave well sufficient? Let me know if it isn't. The MHMC
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Thursday 01 Sep 2011 15:29:35 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
I like this proposal :)
Is the documentation on the math of how to get
Hi,
At Sat, 03 Sep 2011 00:53:58 +0200,
Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Freitag, 2. September 2011, 23:34:29 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> > > If the load balancer does not have some hidden delicacies, there is a
> > > very simple check to see if my understanding is right.
> > No, it takes into
Hi,
At Sat, 03 Sep 2011 00:53:58 +0200,
Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
Am Freitag, 2. September 2011, 23:34:29 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
If the load balancer does not have some hidden delicacies, there is a
very simple check to see if my understanding is right.
No, it takes into account
Am Freitag, 2. September 2011, 23:34:29 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> > If the load balancer does not have some hidden delicacies, there is a
> > very simple check to see if my understanding is right.
> >
> > Since SSKs are mostly unsuccessfull and are about 50% of the requests,
> > the bandwidth
On Friday 02 Sep 2011 18:20:02 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland amphibian.dyndns.org
> > wrote:
>
> > WE NEED MORE DATA.
> >
>
> Well, my gut tells me that our existing scheme is likely too complicated to
> fix unless we are extremely fortuitous, however I'm
On Friday 02 Sep 2011 19:31:14 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Freitag, 2. September 2011, 12:20:02 schrieb Ian Clarke:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland > amphibian.dyndns.org
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > WE NEED MORE DATA.
> >
> > Well, my gut tells me that our existing
On Friday 02 Sep 2011 18:20:02 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland amphibian.dyndns.org
> > wrote:
>
> > WE NEED MORE DATA.
>
> Well, my gut tells me that our existing scheme is likely too complicated to
> fix unless we are extremely fortuitous, however I'm
Am Freitag, 2. September 2011, 12:20:02 schrieb Ian Clarke:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland amphibian.dyndns.org
> > wrote:
> >
> > WE NEED MORE DATA.
>
> Well, my gut tells me that our existing scheme is likely too complicated to
> fix unless we are extremely fortuitous,
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> WE NEED MORE DATA.
>
Well, my gut tells me that our existing scheme is likely too complicated to
fix unless we are extremely fortuitous, however I'm happy to be wrong about
that if others think that they have a good understanding of why
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org
wrote:
WE NEED MORE DATA.
Well, my gut tells me that our existing scheme is likely too complicated to
fix unless we are extremely fortuitous, however I'm happy to be wrong about
that if others think that they have a
Am Freitag, 2. September 2011, 12:20:02 schrieb Ian Clarke:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org
wrote:
WE NEED MORE DATA.
Well, my gut tells me that our existing scheme is likely too complicated to
fix unless we are extremely fortuitous, however
On Friday 02 Sep 2011 18:20:02 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org
wrote:
WE NEED MORE DATA.
Well, my gut tells me that our existing scheme is likely too complicated to
fix unless we are extremely fortuitous, however I'm happy to
On Friday 02 Sep 2011 19:31:14 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
Am Freitag, 2. September 2011, 12:20:02 schrieb Ian Clarke:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org
wrote:
WE NEED MORE DATA.
Well, my gut tells me that our existing scheme is likely
On Friday 02 Sep 2011 18:20:02 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org
wrote:
WE NEED MORE DATA.
Well, my gut tells me that our existing scheme is likely too complicated to
fix unless we are extremely fortuitous, however I'm happy
Am Freitag, 2. September 2011, 23:34:29 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
If the load balancer does not have some hidden delicacies, there is a
very simple check to see if my understanding is right.
Since SSKs are mostly unsuccessfull and are about 50% of the requests,
the bandwidth limiter
On Wednesday 31 Aug 2011 15:05:51 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Monday 29 Aug 2011 19:28:50 Ian Clarke wrote:
> >> Ok, thinking about it, here is a proposal, or rather, the beginning of a
> >> proposal. I'm assuming that we get rid of
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
>> I like this proposal :)
>>
>> Is the documentation on the math of how to get the random routing to
>> behave well sufficient? Let me know if it isn't. The MHMC routing math
>> shouldn't be too complicated, but we want to be certain it's
On Wednesday 31 Aug 2011 15:05:51 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Monday 29 Aug 2011 19:28:50 Ian Clarke wrote:
Ok, thinking about it, here is a proposal, or rather, the beginning of a
proposal. I'm assuming that we
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
I like this proposal :)
Is the documentation on the math of how to get the random routing to
behave well sufficient? Let me know if it isn't. The MHMC routing math
shouldn't be too complicated, but we want to be
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Monday 29 Aug 2011 19:28:50 Ian Clarke wrote:
>> Ok, thinking about it, here is a proposal, or ?rather, the beginning of a
>> proposal. ?I'm assuming that we get rid of NLM, fair sharing, and anything
>> else intended to control load,
On Monday 29 Aug 2011 19:28:50 Ian Clarke wrote:
Ok, thinking about it, here is a proposal, or rather, the beginning of a
proposal. I'm assuming that we get rid of NLM, fair sharing, and anything
else intended to control load, and replace it with this. We will absolutely
need to simulate
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Monday 29 Aug 2011 19:28:50 Ian Clarke wrote:
Ok, thinking about it, here is a proposal, or rather, the beginning of a
proposal. I'm assuming that we get rid of NLM, fair sharing, and anything
else intended
25 matches
Mail list logo
