On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:14:44PM -0600, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:48:13AM -0600, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> > > Every routed request already has a UniqueID; why would we make up a
> > > new ID system just for QRs? Currently, QRs are b
Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:48:13AM -0600, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> > Every routed request already has a UniqueID; why would we make up a
> > new ID system just for QRs? Currently, QRs are between 80 and 100
> > bytes, I plan on having them down to 12 bytes. Drop
Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:41:59AM -0600, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> > Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Make sure it's reasonably easy to extend it... there will only be a few
> > > possible fields on a given message, but there may be new messages etc.
>
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:48:13AM -0600, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> Ken Corson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Edgar Friendly wrote:
> >
> > Okay, this is only regarding Q's and QR's , but what if the sending
> > node included a 2 or 4 byte QueryID value ? This would be a simple
> > counter, but
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:41:59AM -0600, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Make sure it's reasonably easy to extend it... there will only be a few
> > possible fields on a given message, but there may be new messages etc.
>
> So far we have less than 50 messages (I t
Ken Corson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Edgar Friendly wrote:
>
> Okay, this is only regarding Q's and QR's , but what if the sending
> node included a 2 or 4 byte QueryID value ? This would be a simple
> counter, but the value would be unique between that pair of peers.
> Then, when it came tim
Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Make sure it's reasonably easy to extend it... there will only be a few
> possible fields on a given message, but there may be new messages etc.
So far we have less than 50 messages (I think it's around 25 or so,
but I'll estimate high to prove my point). I'm a
Edgar Friendly wrote:
Zlatin Balevsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
We are often sending 10s of messages in a single packet; most of these
messages are very similar (i.e. QRs). While each message in itself
isn't well compressible because of the nature of the strings it
contains, a packet with 20 mes
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:55:38PM -0600, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> Zlatin Balevsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We are often sending 10s of messages in a single packet; most of these
> > messages are very similar (i.e. QRs). While each message in itself
> > isn't well compressible because of
Zlatin Balevsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are often sending 10s of messages in a single packet; most of these
> messages are very similar (i.e. QRs). While each message in itself
> isn't well compressible because of the nature of the strings it
> contains, a packet with 20 messages could b
We are often sending 10s of messages in a single packet; most of these
messages are very similar (i.e. QRs). While each message in itself
isn't well compressible because of the nature of the strings it
contains, a packet with 20 messages could be compressed much better,
resulting in reduced ba
11 matches
Mail list logo
