From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22332 invoked by uid 1002); 15 Apr 2003 12:25:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 18113 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2003 12:25:24 -0000 To: Gentoo-Dev References: <1050351263.19545.20.camel@chinstrap.penguins.homeunix.net> <1050367770.2567.2.camel@chinstrap.penguins.homeunix.net> <1050394552.10995.20.camel@localhost> From: "James H. Cloos Jr." In-Reply-To: <1050394552.10995.20.camel@localhost> Date: 15 Apr 2003 08:24:42 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] torrent support in portage X-Archives-Salt: 93811586-8b27-4148-ba51-bd7dd7f2d01f X-Archives-Hash: 229870ec4092e437fe6dc15922d9c6ee >>>>> "Brian" == Brian Friday writes: Brian> The biggest problem associated with new bittorrent users (IMHO) Brian> is that they swamp their connection (unless they are on a T-1+) Brian> if a reasonable "--max_upload_rate" is not set. Yes, that is part of the problem when connected via straws. But a dialup is entirely swamped even with --max_upload_rate 1. Now, if it can be limited to just, say, 32 or 64 sockets, with a reasonably good guarantee that no more nodes will try to connect while that limit is reached, I'd suspect it would work well even on such low bandwidth connections. -JimC -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list