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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Okay, now that it's decided this thing will go in...
I'm kinda leaning toward the idea that we change the parser for
- --limit-rate to something that takes a percentage, instead of adding a
new option. While it probably means a little extra coding,
Micah Cowan wrote:
I'm kinda leaning toward the idea that we change the parser for
--limit-rate to something that takes a percentage, instead of adding a
new option. While it probably means a little extra coding, it handily
deals with broken cases like people specifying both --limit-rate and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Matthias Vill wrote:
I would appreciate having a --limit-rate N% option.
So now about those broken cases. You could do some least of both
policy (which would of course still need the time to do measuring and
can cut only afterwards).
Or
Micah Cowan schrieb:
Matthias Vill wrote:
I would appreciate having a --limit-rate N% option.
So now about those broken cases. You could do some least of both
policy (which would of course still need the time to do measuring and
can cut only afterwards).
Or otherwise you could use a
