On Friday 02 Sep 2011 19:31:14 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Freitag, 2. September 2011, 12:20:02 schrieb Ian Clarke: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland <toad at > > amphibian.dyndns.org > > > wrote: > > > > > > WE NEED MORE DATA. > > > > Well, my gut tells me that our existing scheme is likely too complicated to > > fix unless we are extremely fortuitous, however I'm happy to be wrong about > > that if others think that they have a good understanding of why we're having > > problems and how to fix them. > > If the load balancer does not have some hidden delicacies, there is a very > simple check to see if my understanding is right. > > Since SSKs are mostly unsuccessfull and are about 50% of the requests, the > bandwidth limiter essentially targets 50% of the bandwidth.
No, it takes into account that SSKs use very little bandwidth (1-2K versus 32K). -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20110902/5484d30e/attachment.pgp>
