On Fri, 28 May 2004 18:39:14 -0400, Thomas Guyot-Sionnest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's either not that speed, or not DSL!
ADSL is 1Mbit up, 8Mbit down; SDSL is a little faster for upload, but
slower for download (up=down)...
Even a dedicated T1 is not that fast, around 50Mbps!
Wrong list
Woah. We have MUCH less bandwidth in the UK. :|
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 10:13:04AM +0200, Troed S?ngberg wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004 18:39:14 -0400, Thomas Guyot-Sionnest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's either not that speed, or not DSL!
ADSL is 1Mbit up, 8Mbit down; SDSL is a little
That's either not that speed, or not DSL!
ADSL is 1Mbit up, 8Mbit down; SDSL is a little faster for upload, but
slower for download (up=down)...
Even a dedicated T1 is not that fast, around 50Mbps!
Thomas Guyot
Dave wrote:
You want to move to Japan instead. 100Mbits up, 100Mbits down DSL, for
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:34:18AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote:
Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:04:53AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote:
Not terribly well, because of high level bandwidth limiting. The node
needs to know how much bandwidth is available to
Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:04:53AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote:
Not terribly well, because of high level bandwidth limiting. The node
needs to know how much bandwidth is available to estimate how much is
being used and therefore how many queries to allow.
Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What would be nice (in lieu of being able to prefer certain IP ranges - I
get local traffic far cheaper) would be a way to limit monthly transfer,
eg set it so the node can use 5GB/month, and it'll aim for a daily
transfer of about 170MB, but will
[snip]
1. My experience is that I can get a limit of 5 Gb of *international*
traffic a
month (170 Mb a day) with Node bandwidth limits of
Overall 0
Output 750
Input 0
Yup, a limit of 750 bytes per second. I need to experiment more with
the
Overall setting. Freenet is the single most effective
Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing that I can think of is limiting the size of incoming files
not requested by the node directly - stop splitfiles and things going
through. I'm more interested in the information, not movies, but I
can't think of a tidy way to implement
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:05:42AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote:
Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What would be nice (in lieu of being able to prefer certain IP ranges - I
get local traffic far cheaper) would be a way to limit monthly transfer,
eg set it so the node can use
Have you tried averageOutputLimit ? Does it work?
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:25:33PM +1200, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
[snip]
1. My experience is that I can get a limit of 5 Gb of *international*
traffic a
month (170 Mb a day) with Node bandwidth limits of
Overall 0
Output 750
Input 0
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:32:50AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote:
Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing that I can think of is limiting the size of incoming files
not requested by the node directly - stop splitfiles and things going
through. I'm more interested in the
Toad wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:05:42AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote:
So I've been working towards a Linux traffic shaper that gives sets no limits
on traffic with domestic IP addresses and limits international traffic so the
total monthly limit hits 5 Gb (my cap).
HOW do you determine
Toad wrote:
2. I really suspect that more serious bandwidth limiting should be done at an
operating system (router) level rather than at the Freenet level. I suspect
that's what you'll be told around here. That way you can also take account of
things happening other than your node. :-)
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:42:28PM +0300, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
Toad wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:05:42AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote:
So I've been working towards a Linux traffic shaper that gives sets no
limits on traffic with domestic IP addresses and limits international
traffic
On 24/05/2004, at 11:32 PM, Wayne McDougall wrote:
Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing that I can think of is limiting the size of incoming files
not requested by the node directly - stop splitfiles and things going
through. I'm more interested in the information, not movies, but
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:25:33PM +1200, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
[bigger snip]
Yeah, I'm looking at it, but there's no decent way to detect freenet
packets.
That's a feature :).
Yeah, even on localhost :P IPTABLE's OWNER match target only works in
the OUTPUT chain. I can't monitor something
On 25/05/2004, at 5:27 AM, Toad wrote:
[snip]
2. I really suspect that more serious bandwidth limiting should be
done at an
operating system (router) level rather than at the Freenet level. I
suspect
that's what you'll be told around here. That way you can also take
account of
things happening
Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:05:42AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote:
Perhaps. That would also lead to high message send times though. Freenet
needs to know what the limit is even if you use external limiting.
Fair enough. But given shared bandwidth needs shouldn't a
TLD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is message send time a problem? I mean, AFAIK freenet is able to recognize
links with higher latency and use them as little as possible, thus reducing
the outbound traffic over those links in favour of local
(=not-so-limited) nodes.
I think message send time IS
19 matches
Mail list logo
