/emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080428/b07be0b0/attachment.pgp>
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Exactly how common are broadband connections with less than 256kbps upstream?
> Anyone got one?
I assume I'm not the only Freenet user who shares a 256kbps link with
several flatmates...
Cheers,
Michael
6kbps upstream?
> Anyone got one?
I had one for years; my parents still have one iirc
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080428/2ff43ac3/attachment.pgp>
not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080428/6bdc1008/attachment.pgp>
lication/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080428/935f08e9/attachment.pgp>
ow common are broadband connections with less than 256kbps upstream?
Anyone got one?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080428/9504748c/attachment.pgp>
emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080428/169f731a/attachment.pgp>
comprehensible to geeks, but not to
> non-geeks. IMHO these should go in medium.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080428/36de2a3e/attachment.pgp>
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080428/295393b0/attachment.pgp>
---
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080428/20ca8e81/attachment.pgp>
nts/20080428/dc5cdb22/attachment.pgp>
stinfo/devl
>
>
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080428/3d08de2a/attachment.pgp>
On Apr 28, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Load management proposal:
>
> When we receive a request, we stick it in a queue. The queue is
> limited in
> length, and limited in queue time (probably 500-1000ms). If a
> request is
> still on the queue at the end of the timeout, or if
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> > With only 3 click from one of the pre-configured index page you can get
> > some. If I remember correctly:
> > - take the IA archive (this index is done by a crawler and not by
> > hand like the others)
> > - In the index on
re
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080428/29d29486/attachment.pgp>
Agreed with the below, this is very unlikely to cause problems, either in
terms of bugs or in terms of free JVM compatibility (on unix, implementation
of FileChannel.read(long, buffer) is a trivial pread wrapper).
On Saturday 26 April 2008 14:40, Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at
Load management proposal:
When we receive a request, we stick it in a queue. The queue is limited in
length, and limited in queue time (probably 500-1000ms). If a request is
still on the queue at the end of the timeout, or if there are too many
requests on the queue, we reject it.
We have a
two messages:
bad PR for freenet on Slashdot
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:
Saturday 26 Apr 2008 15:04:39
Groups:
freenet
Followup-To:
freenet
default indexes giving Freenet some bad PR on slashdot:
In simple mode, the config page lists things like what IP address FCP should
bind to. This is to minimise our support overhead from users who half know
what they're doing, but who don't see the advanced mode flag ... But for most
users, it sucks. The config page should only list simple stuff,
Matthew Toseland a écrit :
In simple mode, the config page lists things like what IP address FCP should
bind to. This is to minimise our support overhead from users who half know
what they're doing, but who don't see the advanced mode flag ... But for most
users, it sucks. The config page
Okay, these are the changes I am going to make (dbkr will help with CSS):
- There will be 3 modes for the config page: simple, advanced and developer.
There will be tabs at the top to select between them, using a ? parameter.
Options which are semi-computer-literate-newbie-friendly go under
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-28 14:28:50]:
Author: toad
Date: 2008-04-28 14:28:49 + (Mon, 28 Apr 2008)
New Revision: 19582
Modified:
trunk/freenet/src/freenet/clients/http/FirstTimeWizardToadlet.java
Log:
Change default to assume that we're on 256kbps.
Huh ?
On Monday 28 April 2008 16:18, Florent Daignière wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-28 14:28:50]:
Author: toad
Date: 2008-04-28 14:28:49 + (Mon, 28 Apr 2008)
New Revision: 19582
Modified:
trunk/freenet/src/freenet/clients/http/FirstTimeWizardToadlet.java
* Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-28 17:08:15]:
On Monday 28 April 2008 16:18, Florent Daignière wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-28 14:28:50]:
Author: toad
Date: 2008-04-28 14:28:49 + (Mon, 28 Apr 2008)
New Revision: 19582
Modified:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With only 3 click from one of the pre-configured index page you can get
some. If I remember correctly:
- take the IA archive (this index is done by a crawler and not by
hand like the others)
- In the
On Monday 28 April 2008 18:00, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With only 3 click from one of the pre-configured index page you can get
some. If I remember correctly:
- take the IA archive (this index is done by a crawler
On Apr 28, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Load management proposal:
When we receive a request, we stick it in a queue. The queue is
limited in
length, and limited in queue time (probably 500-1000ms). If a
request is
still on the queue at the end of the timeout, or if there
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Exactly how common are broadband connections with less than 256kbps upstream?
Anyone got one?
I assume I'm not the only Freenet user who shares a 256kbps link with
several flatmates...
Cheers,
Michael
___
Devl mailing list
On Monday 28 April 2008 03:02, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Sven-Ola Tücke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-26 00:01:36]:
...please remove stun.fwd.org from JSTUN.java. Does'nt look like a
functioning
site.
Done in r19577
Is this a good idea? We don't want to be identifiable from which
Ratchet has had somewhat better performance on his 12K/sec node if he reduces
the max opennet peers to 10-12. This produces a higher payload percentage and
similar output bandwidth, so less bandwidth is wasted on queries we don't
handle.
This is to be expected with the current load management
On Monday 28 April 2008 19:39, Michael Rogers wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Exactly how common are broadband connections with less than 256kbps
upstream?
Anyone got one?
I assume I'm not the only Freenet user who shares a 256kbps link with
several flatmates...
In which case you can
On Monday 28 April 2008 18:15, Robert Hailey wrote:
On Apr 28, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Load management proposal:
When we receive a request, we stick it in a queue. The queue is
limited in
length, and limited in queue time (probably 500-1000ms). If a
request
* Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-28 21:54:34]:
On Monday 28 April 2008 03:02, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Sven-Ola Tücke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-26 00:01:36]:
...please remove stun.fwd.org from JSTUN.java. Does'nt look like a
functioning
site.
Done in r19577
33 matches
Mail list logo
