-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> Please describe the formula through which to calculate the speed of
>> the data that you need to send to your peer, which has 19 other peers
>> (and you have no knowledge about the speed with which they are
>> transmitting).
>
> Simple:
>
> for i
On 01/21/2011 02:34 PM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:18:33 +0300, Volodya wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/21/2011 10:32 PM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:22:13 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
So, the question then becomes, when the node is
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:18:33 +0300, Volodya wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/21/2011 10:32 PM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:22:13 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
> >>> So, the question then becomes, when the node is clearly receiving
> >>> more p
So let me see if I understand.
It's a breeze to get my firewall to accept incoming TCP packets from A
or from B. But there are special routing permissions necessary to
forward packets from A to B or from B to A, and it would be a nightmare
to keep routing tables straight?
Speaking of firewa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/21/2011 10:32 PM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:22:13 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>>> So, the question then becomes, when the node is clearly receiving
>>> more packets than it's supposed to, why is it taking so long (many
>>>
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:22:13 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
> > So, the question then becomes, when the node is clearly receiving
> > more packets than it's supposed to, why is it taking so long (many
> > minutes
> > -- I never actually waited to see if the flood, which consumed my
> > entire conn
> So, the question then becomes, when the node is clearly receiving more
> packets than it's supposed to, why is it taking so long (many minutes
> -- I never actually waited to see if the flood, which consumed my
> entire connection's 80KiB/sec capacity, would eventually subside) for
> the rate to
On 22/01/2011, at 8:04 AM, Ray Jones wrote:
> On 01/21/2011 11:59 AM, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>> On 22/01/2011, at 7:55 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:51:35 -0700, Ray Jones wrote:
If I understand correctly
UDP has no such thing as flow control. So eve
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:08:35 -0500, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:05:09 -0500, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:59:32 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > On 22/01/2011, at 7:55 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:51:35 -0700, Ray Jones
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:05:09 -0500, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:59:32 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > On 22/01/2011, at 7:55 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:51:35 -0700, Ray Jones wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If I understand correctly
> > >>
> > >>
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:59:32 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>
> On 22/01/2011, at 7:55 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:51:35 -0700, Ray Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> If I understand correctly
> >>
> >> UDP has no such thing as flow control. So even though your machine
> >> re
On 01/21/2011 11:59 AM, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
On 22/01/2011, at 7:55 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:51:35 -0700, Ray Jones wrote:
If I understand correctly
UDP has no such thing as flow control. So even though your machine
reads only X packets per second, the sending ma
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:55:34 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>
> On 22/01/2011, at 7:51 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:37:54 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
> >>
> >> On 22/01/2011, at 7:34 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:26:56 +1300, Phillip Hutc
On 22/01/2011, at 7:55 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:51:35 -0700, Ray Jones wrote:
>>
>> If I understand correctly
>>
>> UDP has no such thing as flow control. So even though your machine
>> reads only X packets per second, the sending machine is still sending
>> and you'
On 22/01/2011, at 7:51 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:37:54 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> On 22/01/2011, at 7:34 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:26:56 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
On 22/01/2011, at 7:21 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:51:35 -0700, Ray Jones wrote:
>
> If I understand correctly
>
> UDP has no such thing as flow control. So even though your machine
> reads only X packets per second, the sending machine is still sending
> and you're still receiving. If the packets build up too far your
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:37:54 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>
> On 22/01/2011, at 7:34 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:26:56 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
> >>
> >> On 22/01/2011, at 7:21 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:59:06 +0100, David ‘Bombe
If I understand correctly
UDP has no such thing as flow control. So even though your machine reads
only X packets per second, the sending machine is still sending and
you're still receiving. If the packets build up too far your machine
will drop them, but you've already used the bandwidth
On 22/01/2011, at 7:34 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:26:56 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> On 22/01/2011, at 7:21 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:59:06 +0100, David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
a “simple thing” like bandwidth limiting
>>>
>>> Can som
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:26:56 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>
> On 22/01/2011, at 7:21 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:59:06 +0100, David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
> >> a “simple thing” like bandwidth limiting
> >
> > Can someone explain why bandwidth limiting might not be such
On 22/01/2011, at 7:21 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:59:06 +0100, David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
>> a “simple thing” like bandwidth limiting
>
> Can someone explain why bandwidth limiting might not be such a simple
> thing? Volodya tried, with his massive-incoming-packet theory
>
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:59:06 +0100, David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
> a “simple thing” like bandwidth limiting
Can someone explain why bandwidth limiting might not be such a simple
thing? Volodya tried, with his massive-incoming-packet theory
(40KiB :p), but that's not true -- freenet packets are about
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:59:06 +0100, David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
> On Thursday 20 January 2011 20:32:30 Dennis Nezic wrote:
>
> > > > Fix!
> > > Please refrain from bossing us around. You are not in a position
> > > to do that.
> > Please refrain from mis-interpreting my words. (There is such a
> >
23 matches
Mail list logo
