On 10/12/07, Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Tony Godshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> 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? > > Personally I don't see the value in attempting to find out the > available bandwidth automatically.
You keep saying that. > It seems too error prone, no > matter how much heuristics you add into it. But like someone said- the error is always in the "nice" direction. > --limit-rate works > because reading the data more slowly causes it to (eventually) also be > sent more slowly. --limit-percentage is impossible to define in > precise terms, there's just too much guessing. My patch --limit-percent does exactly the same thing except without requiring foreknowledge. -- Best Regards. Please keep in touch.
