[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections...
From: |
Pierre Etchemaite |
Subject: |
Re: [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections... |
Date: |
Sun, 8 Feb 2004 03:36:36 +0100 |
Le Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:30:06 +0100, address@hidden a écrit :
> Still I'd try to tweak the settings (max_upload_slots,
> max_hard_upload_rate [not too high, not too low],
> max_opened_connections, max_concurrent_downloads,
> max_connections_per_second, max_indirect_connections [should be >
> max_opened_connections], ...)
Add to that max_connections_per_second/max_clients_per_second (which one
obsoletes the other now ?).
As was said a long time ago now, just opening a connection to a peer, then
dialoging, then closing the connection, use bandwidth. The average usage of
a connection not involving file data exchange was estimated to about
300 bytes.
Defaut of (max) 10 connections per second means default total overhead can
be up to 3kB/s, just for outgoing peer-to-peer connections.
You must add to that incoming connections, connections with servers (usually
rare, so hopefully negligible), and UDP traffic, but 3kB/s is a good start.
And, sad to say but true, I think that aMule, being based on eMule,
uses several tricks to lower protocol overhead (more UDP protocol extensions
to avoid unnecessary connections, shortcuts in protocol stages, that break
the original "stateless" design of the protocol but also lower overhead,
maybe more aggressive pruning of possibly dead sources and servers,...)
- [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., Aniruddha Shankar, 2004/02/07
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., kami petersen, 2004/02/07
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., mldonkey, 2004/02/07
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., Aniruddha Shankar, 2004/02/07
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., Traumflug, 2004/02/07
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., mldonkey, 2004/02/07
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., Traumflug, 2004/02/07
- [Mldonkey-users] Re: using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., Sven Hartge, 2004/02/07
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] Re: using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., mldonkey, 2004/02/07
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., Tristan Seligmann, 2004/02/07
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections...,
Pierre Etchemaite <=
- [Mldonkey-users] Multi-network download, Traumflug, 2004/02/08
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] Multi-network download, Martin, 2004/02/08
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] Multi-network download, Traumflug, 2004/02/08
- [Mldonkey-users] Re: Multi-network download, Sven Hartge, 2004/02/08
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] Re: Multi-network download, Traumflug, 2004/02/08
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] Re: Multi-network download, Traumflug, 2004/02/08
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] Multi-network download, Martin, 2004/02/08
- [Mldonkey-users] Re: using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., Sven Hartge, 2004/02/08
- Re: [Mldonkey-users] Re: using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., Pierre Etchemaite, 2004/02/08
Re: [Mldonkey-users] using mldonkey on VERY low-bandwidth connections..., Traumflug, 2004/02/07