On 10/19/07, Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Micah Cowan wrote: > > Also: does the current proposed patch deal properly with situations such > > as where the first 15 seconds haven't been taken up by part of a single > > download, but rather several very small ones? I'm not very familiar yet > > with the rate-limiting stuff, so I really have no idea. > > If the point is to limit *your* bandwidth, well it's hard to say, > although the consensus seems to be that "overly conservative" is the > right thing to do, usually. Of course, if the point (as in one suggested > use case) is to limit the amount of the /server's/ bandwidth consumed, > then a new percent should be calculated for every host. > > Just some thoughts...
I think it kicks in on each URL but would have to study the code more thoroughly. The point is to limit one's consumption of available bandwidth though upstream defective switches (that are unfair when saturated) and wifi (which exhibits the same effect). I was thinking especially of those who share one's pipe, since that's the choke point in most of my experience (the DSL modem, the WAN connection, the T-1). I don't think it helps servers much -- they tend to be on better-grade switches -- so a per-domain behavior doesn't make sense to me. TG
