On 10/10/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hash: SHA256
> Tony Godshall wrote:
> > The scenario I was picturing was where you'd want to make sure some
> > bandwidth was left available so that unfair routers wouldn't screw
> > your net-neighbors.  I really don't see this as an attempt to "be
> > unobtrusive" at all.  This is not an attempt to hide one's traffic,
> > it's an attempt to not overwhelm in the presence of unfair switching.
> > If I say --limit-pct 75% and the network is congested, yes, what I
> > want is to use no more than 75% of the available bandwidth, not the
> > total bandwidth.  So, yes, if the network is more congensted just now,
> > then let this download get a lower bitrate, that's fine.
> I'm pretty sure that's what Jim meant by "being unobtrusive"; it surely
> had nothing to do with traffic-hiding.
> My current impression is that this is a useful addition for some limited
> scenarios, but not particularly more useful than --limit-rate already
> is. That's part of what makes it a good candidate as a plugin.

I guess I don't see how picking a reasonable rate automatically is
less useful then having to know what the maximum upstream bandwidth is
ahead of time.  (If the argument is about the rare case where maxing
out the download even briefly is unacceptable, then the whole
technique wget uses is really not appropriate- even limit-rate does
not back off till it has retrieved enough bytes to start measuring and
then they come in as a burst- that's the nature of starting a TCP

Reply via email to