On Tuesday 21 October 2003 03:47 pm, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 09:43 10/21/2003, you wrote:
> >I played around with rsync sometime ago and remember that it has an option
> >for
> >limiting bandwidth. I don't know if it really works, or how good it works,
> This is going to be useless for you whe
transfers to no more than 8 KBps which
in effect is nearly 70 Kbps. Using "--bwlimit=64" by mistake will result in
rsync happily consuming nearly 600 Kbps of BW if it is available.
In my case, this is not what I want. I want rsync to use every bit of
bandwidth it can, but I want web bro
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 14:08, Jack Bowling wrote:
> As Jason pointed out, you want to use netfilter or PF's QoS
> capabilities. If using netfilter, a match module for Kazaa and other p2p
> protocols has recently been developed that will make it easier to set up
> marking of packets for instituting
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:43:51AM -0400, Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2003 11:30 am, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I don't know whether this is the right place to ask, but kindly point me to
> > an FM that I can R if it isn't. Cross-posted to redhat-list and
> > shri
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 11:30, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> So really, happiness right now is just priority service for HTTP traffic.
> Go to the head of the line, and all that, since everything else can take an
> extra week to download without causing us any inconvenience.
>
> I have heard some term
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 11:30 am, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I don't know whether this is the right place to ask, but kindly point me to
> an FM that I can R if it isn't. Cross-posted to redhat-list and
> shrike-list.
>
> My wife is creating lots of Kazaa traffic, and I am using rsync to c
x FTP site, the LDP site, and
some other stuff. Clearly, when one is moving well over 100GB over a 128
Kbps link, this is going to take a long time... but that's OK, we're in no
hurry.
However, of course since the link is saturated then email downloads and web
browsing become dog-slow
On 12 Dec 2002, greg wrote:
> any way to tweak the way your web browser ( in my case mozilla) accesses
> the internet and web pages. Something like max amount of packets
> allowed to send/receive or whatever at one time.
If you mean TCP window recieve size, that's a windoze tweak. In linux, t
Hi all,
any way to tweak the way your web browser ( in my case mozilla) accesses
the internet and web pages. Something like max amount of packets
allowed to send/receive or whatever at one time.
thanks Greg
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubs
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, john w. politsky wrote:
> im trying to view a web page with cgi script in red hat hat, using either
> mozilla or netscape 7 , the header and footer show but the middle does not
> show, any ideas?
I'm afraid that with no code to look at, there's no way for anybody to
help you.
im trying to view a web page with cgi script in red hat hat, using either
mozilla or netscape 7 , the header and footer show but the middle does not
show, any ideas?
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@;redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/m
Ok I run Squid and other proxy servers, I also teach proxy servers for a
living so like all advice...
With a proxy server installed you are looking for around a 60%
improvement to really make it worthwhile. This means that for every
object you requested from the web (and in this case an objec
Does anyone have squid installed as a caching proxy to increase browsing performance on your network? I have 50 terminals connecting to a quad processor server via ICA (citrix) and I have a dual processor server with RH7 that I just installed squid and configured to be a caching proxy. I am not sur
(sorry, slightly OT, but ...) i'm looking for pointers to anything
online that describes the security issues involved in just *browsing*
the web.
that is, the inherent dangers in loading and viewing pages that contain
java, javascript, dynamic HTML, etc., stuff like flash and shockwave,
and
I can't look right now to get the name, but if all you need is a low-functionality
gui web browser, the kde file manager (the one whose icon is a picture of a file
folder) would probably be good. You can probably get it to work in just about any
window manager if you have the kde libs installed o
Steve,
You might try using FVWM. It is the smallest graphical manager on my
box, but netscape is still a graphical pig unless you have much memory.
If you find another graphical browser, please let me know. I would be
interested...
Kerry
===
Steve wrote:
>
> Please excuse my ignoran
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Steve said:
S>Please excuse my ignorance but does anyone know of a graphical web
S>browser that can be run from the console?
Nope.
S>I don't want to use a windows manager if at all possible. If the answer to
S>this question is no can you recommend a low overhead windows man
Please excuse my ignorance but does anyone know of a graphical web
browser that can be run from the console? I don't want to use a windows manager
if at all possible. If the answer to this question is no can you recommend a
low overhead windows manager? Gnome and KDE eat up too much memory and all
18 matches
Mail list logo
