As a practical example the windows download manager FileHound throttles downloads by just reading data slowly and this has never caused a problem with any site I have downloaded from. I thought TCP auto-throttled anyway otherwise wouldn't the whole net die because some routers are slower than others?
FileHounds pretty naive throttleing causes quite bursty traffic though - the average rate is approximately what you request but I can see it going through my router in bursts of 2-3 seconds of traffic, pause, 2-3 seconds of traffic, ... Degs > > > > Under the thread "Size limits", Oskar wrote: > > > > > I never got a straight answer out of anybody about choking the > > > incoming connection. Is it a healthy thing to do? Will it overflow > > > your OS buffers and screw with the machine in general or will TCP > > > handle it graciously? > > <snip - thanks for the answer> > > > After this decidedly weak research, it still sounds like the only way > > to do reciever bandwidth throttling in the short run is to hack > > together some crude QoS declarations and buffer management of our own. > > A simple example is recievers sending a "dude! slow down, I'm on a > > 28.8 modem here" message, and senders all being nice enough to comply. > > Yes, I'm cringing at the concept, too -- though I'd gladly take the > > assignment if it were given to me. > > It would not be that difficult to implement a rather crude level of this - > since nodes are already handshaking eachother for a version check, you > could easily send the prefered bandwidth usage in the handshake > message. The only complication is that the handshake message occurs on the > same connection, so you would have to choke it while it is active, though > that shouldn't be such a big deal (I believe it was Bill Trost who wrote > the connection choking code, and he hasn't been around for a while). > > > I still want to see true bandwith throttling, for several reasons. > > I'm the guy who even wanted throttling to occur in response to outside > > messages/events. Down the road I'll probably take up the issue again, > > but for now, throttling recieves still seems outside the scope of 0.3. > > If there's a true TCP guru out there who disagrees, please speak up. > > I'm not going to debate it now, but just so you know, I still think your > "Network administrators should have access to users nodes" idea insane. > > > > --Will > > (never speaking for his employers, lest I be throttled by *them*) > > willdye at freedom.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Freenet-dev mailing list > > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev > > > > -- > \oskar > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev > _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
