In message <v0422080db4b2007302f4@[195.238.1.121]> Brad Knowles writes:
: Doesn't work. There might be a very low latency but
: low-bandwidth connection between you and one of the servers, when you
: (and everyone else) would be better off if you instead connected to a
: server that shows slightly higher latency but has significantly more
: bandwidth (or less packet loss, or a less loaded server on the other
: end, etc...).
Agreed. The making lots of connections was a bad idea. However, I've
rarely seen low latency and low bandwidth go together. I've also
problems connecting accross high loss links more often. Sure, it is a
statistical argument.
I still think that the n connections wouldn't be that expensive. The
cost, iirc, of a connection that drops is very low. I can certainly
see enough problems with it to encourage jdp to not implement it,
despite being the person that proposed it...
: IMO, there are just too many factors to be considered to apply
: any one simplistic solution. You need more intelligence on both
: ends....
Agreed. But in the abasense of intellegence at one end is causing
problems at the other end.
FWIW, I've found that *MUCH* better response times since I started
using cvsup{6,7,8} on a regular basis than I was getting from
cvsup{1,2,3}. I'm also seeing much faster response times from 6,7,8
than cvsup-master (yes, I know I'm not supposed to use that, but there
are rare times I need to snag the latest change right away...).
I've not tried cvsup 4,5 in a while, but did have trouble connecting
to 5 while polishing my script.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
