On 10/12/07, Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Tony Godshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> > available bandwidth and adjusts to that. The usefullness is in > >> > trying to be unobtrusive to other users. > >> > >> The problem is that Wget simply doesn't have enough information to be > >> unobtrusive. Currently available bandwidth can and does change as new > >> downloads are initiated and old ones are turned off. Measuring > >> initial bandwidth is simply insufficient to decide what bandwidth is > >> really appropriate for Wget; only the user can know that, and that's > >> what --limit-rate does. > > > > My patch (and the doc change in my patch) don't claim to be totally > > unobtrusive [...] Obviously people who the level of unobtrusiveness > > you define shouldn't be using it. > > It was never my intention to define a particular level of > unobtrusiveness; the concept of being unobtrusive to other users was > brought up by Jim and I was responding to that. My point remains that > the maximum initial rate (however you define "initial" in a protocol > as unreliable as TCP/IP) can and will be wrong in a large number of > cases, especially on shared connections.
Again, would an algorithm where the rate is re-measured periodically and the initial-rate-error criticism were therefore addressed reduce your objection to the patch? Perhaps you can answer each idea I gave separately: a) full speed downloads (which re-measure channel capacity) followed by long sleeps b) speed ramps up to peak and then back down > Not only is it impossible to > be "totally unobtrusive", but any *automated* attempts at being nice > to other users are doomed to failure, either by taking too much (if > the download starts when you're alone) or too little (if the download > starts with shared connection). Again, I do not claim to be unobtrusive. Merely to reduce obtrusiveness. I do not and cannot claim to be making wget *nice*, just nicER. You can't deny that dialing back is nicer than not. -- Best Regards. Please keep in touch.