Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Friday 11 January 2008 08:34, Michael Rogers wrote: > >> Robert Hailey wrote: >> >>> Rejecting new >>> requests would keep the data-transfer level traffic from being >>> starved. >>> >> Yup, that makes sense as long as it also applies to local requests. >> > > Which it does, as of some weeks back. > > BTW robert, we do have a limit on the number of running requests: the > bandwidth liability limits. > > Now, is there any reason to prioritise different control messages > differently? > And do we want absolute priorities, or different timeouts (messages will be > sent at t+100ms if they haven't been sent already at the moment, we could > vary this by type), or both? > > For example: > > Group 0: > 100ms coalescing timeout. > Packet acknowledgments. > These need to be sent fairly quickly. > > > Group 2: > Messages which don't have particularly short timeouts. > 200ms coalescing timeout? Or even more? > > nodeToNodeMessage - maybe treat this as bulk
I would argue that nodeToNodeMessage should not be at any lower priority because it is now not only used for potentially pseudo-realtime chat but also "control" messages in the form of differential node references.
