Hi,
On 11/18/2010 08:58 AM, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> Could you please do the same experiment with Tahoe-LAFS v1.7.1? If it
> was just as ill-behaved back then, I guess this isn't a recent
> regression and we don't have to hold up 1.8.1 to investigate it.
Here are the kind of performance I se
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Brian Warner wrote:
> On 11/15/10 3:02 AM, Francois Deppierraz wrote:
>>
>> 1-of-3 58
>> 2-of-3 63
>> 3-of-3 58
>> 10-of-30 210
>> 20-of-60 394
Curious!
Could you please do the same experiment with Tahoe-LAFS v1.7.1? If it
was just as ill-behaved b
On 11/15/10 3:02 AM, Francois Deppierraz wrote:
>
> 1-of-3 58
> 2-of-3 63
> 3-of-3 58
> 10-of-30 210
> 20-of-60 394
Hm. Just before 1.8.0, I was using the JS/Protovis -based download
timeline visualization tools (which didn't get landed) to investigate
the overhead of large k (i.e.
Hi,
On 11/15/2010 07:16 AM, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> In fact, could you run this a few times and collect multiple
> measurements? Maybe it was just a transient "fluke" -- some kind of
> noise on your network or one of your machines interfered with the
> download.
>
> If it wasn't a fluke I w
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Francois Deppierraz
wrote:> Hi Zooko,
>
> Uploading a single 100 MB file takes 277 seconds, that's about 2.9 Mbps.
>
> Downloading the same file takes 351 seconds, about 2.3 Mbps.
It is curious that uploading finished faster than downloading even
though it was mov
Hi Zooko,
Better late than never, I just found your email in the
already-read-but-not-yet-responded list ;)
On 08/04/2010 04:23 AM, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> What's the next step? I still don't know exactly what the UX would be
> for this feature. Would you have a flat file containing a list
> I think it'd be neat if we had the ability to define "availability zones",
> where you
> could specify the replication ratio per-zone instead of globally. For
> instance, if
> you have one zone with the default 3-of-10 share ratio, and another zone with
> a
> 2-of-5 ratio, Tahoe would upload 1
On 08/03/10 22:23, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Francois Deppierraz
> wrote:
>>
>> I'd really love to see location/rack/server-awareness in the peer-selection
>> process.
>
> Thank you for the feedback! I think a lot of people strongly want this
> feature. This is
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Francois Deppierraz
wrote:
>
> I'd really love to see location/rack/server-awareness in the peer-selection
> process.
Thank you for the feedback! I think a lot of people strongly want this
feature. This is described on [wiki:ServerSelection].
What's the next step
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:34:06 +0200, slush wrote:
>> What do we want out of Tahoe-LAFS for the rest of 2010 and for 2011?
>> Oh shoot it is way too late to go into this now. Let me know what
>> *you* want out of Tahoe-LAFS for the rest of 2010 and for 2011! :-)
>
> Any way to implement verify-cap i
> What do we want out of Tahoe-LAFS for the rest of 2010 and for 2011?
> Oh shoot it is way too late to go into this now. Let me know what
> *you* want out of Tahoe-LAFS for the rest of 2010 and for 2011! :-)
Any way to implement verify-cap in near future? It would be very very
helpful for me, bec
On 07/27/2010 09:04 AM, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
= Big Picture Stuff =
What do we want out of Tahoe-LAFS for the rest of 2010 and for 2011?
Oh shoot it is way too late to go into this now. Let me know what
*you* want out of Tahoe-LAFS for the rest of 2010 and for 2011! :-)
I'd really love t
Folks:
"I would not have made this so long except that I do not have the
leisure to make it shorter."
It's late here. I don't have time to write well-organized letters, but
I think it might be better for everyone to see an ill-organized letter
on this topic that to carry on without a letter, so h
13 matches
Mail list logo
