On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:25:48PM +0000, this.is.not.my.real.email.addres s wrote: > Matthew Toseland <toad at ...> writes: > > > > > So in summary, for the small file the two networks were comparable - > > 1:30ish vs 2:00ish. For the ISO, I'm not sure if there was any > > conclusion? > > > > My 2 cents: Inserts are much faster after the changes to load limiting > > just before xmas, or at least, they should be. Generally freenet 0.7 > > uses close to the bandwidth limit now, which it certainly didn't before. > > > > Comments? > > You missed the part where that person uploaded a 500 meg file in 23 hours. > They also sent a subsequent message where someone else downloaded the file > in 18 hours.
On 0.5? Was a similar test carried out on 0.7 though? We need a straight comparison to draw any conclusions. > > I'm running the 0.5 network now and I have been able to download some files. > It's not as fast their downloads, but it's faster then 0.7 downloads. -------------- 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/support/attachments/20070130/4f521ef9/attachment.pgp>
