Re: [jabberd2] Re: Rate limiting non-functional?
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Tomasz Sterna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dnia 2008-07-11, pią o godzinie 13:48 -0700, Mark Doliner pisze: >> Do we >> have a way to call a function after a certain amount of time has >> passed? We would need one for this. > > We have time checks in main loop, but this is pretty hacky. > Using/implementing more sophisticated event loop is a good idea. Yeah, I agree that that sounds like a good idea. I guess it makes sense to leave the rate limiting in router and it will become more useful when/if someone adds some sort of timeout functionality and then improves the rate limiting. I don't think I'll have time to attempt to do that right now. But that's ok, I'm not sure my implementation would be very good :-) Thanks for the response, Mark
[jabberd2] Re: Merging jabberd processes [Was: Rate limiting non-functional?]
Dnia 2008-07-10, czw o godzinie 17:38 -0700, Mark Doliner pisze: > I noticed that router has similar rate limiting, but there the byte > rate limit is a little more effective, [...] This is an example, why I think merging all jabberd processes in one is a good idea. It helps keeping things consistent. -- /\_./o__ Tomasz Sterna (/^/(_^^' http://www.xiaoka.com/ ._.(_.)_ im:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [jabberd2] Re: Rate limiting non-functional?
Dnia 2008-07-11, pią o godzinie 13:48 -0700, Mark Doliner pisze: > Do we > have a way to call a function after a certain amount of time has > passed? We would need one for this. We have time checks in main loop, but this is pretty hacky. Using/implementing more sophisticated event loop is a good idea. -- /\_./o__ Tomasz Sterna (/^/(_^^' http://www.xiaoka.com/ ._.(_.)_ im:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [jabberd2] Re: Rate limiting non-functional?
Dnia 2008-07-10, czw o godzinie 17:38 -0700, Mark Doliner pisze: > It > seems weird to me that the router would limit the traffic sent between > the components and the rate at which new components can connect. I'm > in favor of removing this limiting from router for the sake of > simplifying the code and simplifying router.xml. How do other people > feel? Router accepts transport connections too. I've seen cases where heavy transported traffic flooded the router completely. But since the only option available now is to disconnect rate limited connection, I don't think limiting transports by disconnection is a good option. -- /\_./o__ Tomasz Sterna (/^/(_^^' http://www.xiaoka.com/ ._.(_.)_ im:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
