On Monday 04 August 2003 11:07 pm, Todd Walton wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, 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
Looks good, this is my hourly messageSendTime since I spawned my 6138. All
of this time my node has been under a constant 20kLQPH load with output
throttled to 90kbyte/s.
DO note that there is a negative value in there though
8/6/03 4:00:00 AM CEST 32.76746623664584 124.40905158613512 0.0 58
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:35:49PM +0100, Gordan wrote:
> 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?
>
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:23:18PM -0400, Scott Young wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-08-02 at 21:03, Zlatin Balevsky wrote:
> > Currently we are seeing very high times after the route is found until
> > the message leaves the node. They are in the order of 30 seconds and in
> > some cases more than 2 min
>The alternative is for a node to try to maximize the per-transfer=20
>connection speed by rejecting new requests when the upstream connection=20
>speed is maxed out. Some claim that this is a terrible idea and will=20
>screw up routing because it will be impossible to get a node to accept a=20
