Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations

2004-07-15 Thread Phillip Hutchings
On 16/07/2004, at 7:52 AM, Garb wrote: Message: 3 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:54:35 + (UTC) From: Wayne McDougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-

[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations

2004-07-15 Thread Garb
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:54:35 + (UTC) From: Wayne McDougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > ...The government in New Zeal

Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-14 Thread Phillip Hutchings
Different views on what's realistic? Will Freenet just be a US or bandwidth rich countries project? The government in New Zealand has decided that 256/256 is the highest broadband speed that our telecom monomoply needs to make available to competitors. :-( 128/128 is the fastest connection avai

Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-14 Thread Toad
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 08:54:35PM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: > Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As much as your bandwidth allows. On a capped 256/128 connection Freenet > > managed to use 1.5GB in a day. Now I have a 10GB cap, not good. Anyway, > > that's the sort of transfer you can expe

[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-14 Thread Wayne McDougall
Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:04:47AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: > > I *am* concerned when you express great surprise that Freenet will work > > at all > > on a 768/256 connection. (That was my take on it). I get the impression > > that you expect Freenet to r

Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-14 Thread Toad
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:04:47AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: > I *am* concerned when you express great surprise that Freenet will work at all > on a 768/256 connection. (That was my take on it). I get the impression > that you expect Freenet to require an academic university level of bandwidth

[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-14 Thread Wayne McDougall
Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:00:16AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: > > fproxy will timeout and then I have to start again. And then it won't even > > grab the parts it previously downloaded successfully So over a period of > > weeks my perception is that I eventua

Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-13 Thread Nicholas Sturm
Toad wrote: Is it? Very few. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/m

Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-13 Thread Toad
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:00:16AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: > fproxy will timeout and then I have to start again. And then it won't even > grab the parts it previously downloaded successfully :-( So over a period of > weeks my perception is that I eventually move all the requisite parts into >

[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-12 Thread Wayne McDougall
Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:10:01AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: > > There's lots of cool stuff with averaging limits, and immediate limits, > > and gradual adjustment. Together with incoming being not directly under > > control. It works very well for those of u

Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-12 Thread Toad
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:10:01AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: > There's lots of cool stuff with averaging limits, and immediate limits, > and gradual adjustment. Together with incoming being not directly under > control. It works very well for those of us with monthly bandwidth caps. It does?!

Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations

2004-07-12 Thread Toad
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:20:23PM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: > Stephen P. Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I started a freenet node four days ago, using the default freenet.conf > > settings, adjusted for being behind a firewall. A couple days later I > > increased the storage to

[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-12 Thread Wayne McDougall
Stephen P. Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From: Wayne McDougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I *think* that freenet.conf is set by default to assume as 256Kbits connection > > (based on a rule of thumb of setting limits to half bandwidth capacity). > > > > You would want to adjus

[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-11 Thread Stephen P. Schaefer
From: Wayne McDougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I *think* that freenet.conf is set by default to assume as 256Kbits connection > (based on a rule of thumb of setting limits to half bandwidth capacity). > > You would want to adjust: > > inputBandwidthLimit=1250 > and > outputBandwidthLimit=12

[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations

2004-07-11 Thread Wayne McDougall
Stephen P. Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I started a freenet node four days ago, using the default freenet.conf > settings, adjusted for being behind a firewall. A couple days later I > increased the storage to 1G, which required restarting fred. A couple > days after that I increase