On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:11:39PM -0700, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:16:39PM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck spake thusly:
> > Ok, why does everyone act as though NGrouting is going to be the Holy Grail.
>
> Because we are all frustrated that performance has only gotten worse over
> th
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:16:39PM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck spake thusly:
> Ok, why does everyone act as though NGrouting is going to be the Holy Grail.
Because we are all frustrated that performance has only gotten worse over
the last year and are really really really hoping that things will get
bet
On Monday 04 August 2003 11:49 am, Jay Oliveri wrote:
> D. This is unnecessary complexity if its to be woven into Fred. Expecting
> *all* client writers to somehow implement this scheme without first
> standardizing and perhaps even adding to the FCP spec is unreasonable
> (fcptools may insert co
On Monday 04 August 2003 12:16 pm, Gordan wrote:
> On Monday 04 Aug 2003 17:09, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > I suspect the ratio between HTML and non-HTML data will be more-or-less
> > constant irrespective of the total amount of WWW information - the point
> > still remains that much time will be wasted
On Monday 04 August 2003 18:45, Niklas Bergh wrote:
> > On Monday 04 Aug 2003 17:09, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > I suspect the ratio between HTML and non-HTML data will be more-or-less
> > > constant irrespective of the total amount of WWW information - the
> > > point still remains that much time will
I don't get it. If we were missing writes, the logical thing would be to
reenable fixKeys, or even try to write to all registered keys.
Might be responsible for the extremely long send times we see now... but
reports from users suggest that 5018+ has serious problems that previous
builds didn't, s
>On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:41:45PM +0200, Niklas Bergh wrote:
>> Hmmm.. Well, fproxy knows the mimetype as specified by the inserter at
>> least. That might be quite far from the truth though...
>
>So? The worst that can happen is that it doesn't compress something
>that could be compressed, or t
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:41:45PM +0200, Niklas Bergh wrote:
> Hmmm.. Well, fproxy knows the mimetype as specified by the inserter at
> least. That might be quite far from the truth though...
So? The worst that can happen is that it doesn't compress something
that could be compressed, or tries t
>On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:45:04PM +0200, Niklas Bergh wrote:
>> Could you explain what you mean by 'detecting' mimetypes? How do you
propose
>> that to be done?
>
>IIRC FProxy knows the mime-type of every file.
>
>Ian.
Hmmm.. Well, fproxy knows the mimetype as specified by the inserter at
least.
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:45:04PM +0200, Niklas Bergh wrote:
> Could you explain what you mean by 'detecting' mimetypes? How do you propose
> that to be done?
IIRC FProxy knows the mime-type of every file.
Ian.
--
Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Co
> > To summarize:
> > - I see no need for an automatic compression done by Fproxy. And
neither
> > by the node! ... good grief!
>
> I agree that the node is the wrong place to apply this. Node should handle
the
> routing and the keys. Whether the file is compressed or not should be
> irrelevant at
> On Monday 04 Aug 2003 17:09, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> > I suspect the ratio between HTML and non-HTML data will be more-or-less
> > constant irrespective of the total amount of WWW information - the point
> > still remains that much time will be wasted trying to compress
> > uncompressable data unle
On Monday 04 Aug 2003 17:09, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I suspect the ratio between HTML and non-HTML data will be more-or-less
> constant irrespective of the total amount of WWW information - the point
> still remains that much time will be wasted trying to compress
> uncompressable data unless the clie
Niklas Bergh wrote:
Are you running a script or something that updates your seednodes before
restarting the node? It reseeds if the seednodes.ref is more recent than
the routing table...
Nope
/N
Perhaps your seednodes.ref has a timestamp in the far future, for some
odd reason? You could
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:09:47PM +0100, Gordan wrote:
> On Friday 01 Aug 2003 18:21, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > I don't see why the whole compression thing is generating so much debate
> > - most of the material on Freenet is already compressed, images, audio,
> > video - all are as compressed as they
On Friday 01 August 2003 11:19 pm, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> On Friday 01 August 2003 07:30 pm, Todd Walton wrote:
> > > A: Have the insertion utilities archive and compress by zipping. Have
> > > Fred compress by zipping. Yields good compression. Requires no major
> > > changes to Fred. Requires no c
On Monday 04 Aug 2003 15:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 06:05:45 -0700 Gordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Are there any objections to the above spec, other than objections
> >to using any non-manual compression?
>
> I've been following this thread with increasing disgust so th
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 06:05:45 -0700 Gordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Are there any objections to the above spec, other than objections
>to using any non-manual compression?
I've been following this thread with increasing disgust so that the time
has come to express my thoughts on this issue. ;)
On Friday 01 Aug 2003 19:44, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> So there are three possible solutions.
>
> A: Have the insertion utilities archive and compress by zipping. Have Fred
> compress by zipping. Yields good compression. Requires no major changes to
> Fred. Requires no changes to FProxy.
> B: Have th
On Friday 01 Aug 2003 18:21, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I don't see why the whole compression thing is generating so much debate
> - most of the material on Freenet is already compressed, images, audio,
> video - all are as compressed as they are going to get, and attempting
> to compress them further is
Yes, I haven't gotten those messages for a while, but
now I'm getting these kinds of messages:
04:27:58something got enqueued on a connection after
a trailer. discarding 16 messages for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for null,null null
04:29:03sending a message failed, and the queue
[EMAIL PRO
Thanks. Now I at least know that it *can* be resolved in some way...
/N
- Original Message -
From: "pineapple" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:56 AM
Subject: [freenet-dev] Sun BugId: 4729342 resolves itself
> Haven't seen this happen before,
>Are you running a script or something that updates your seednodes before
>restarting the node? It reseeds if the seednodes.ref is more recent than
>the routing table...
Nope
/N
___
devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org:808
This is the weekly Freenet Project job jar update.
Comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OPEN JOBS
-
* Incorporate an official bug tracking system into the main
freenetproject.org web site. Candidates are Adam's FNBTS,
the SourceForge bug tracker, or ?
* Produce RF
24 matches
Mail list logo
