On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 09:16:25PM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 01:51:58PM -0800, Joseph B. Kowalski wrote: [...] > > Or is it something entirely > > different? If it is different, can we get a short explanation of > > the changes? Also, if it is different, is there a config file > > setting that would make a server behave the way it did before these > > changes were implemented? > > Nope. I had a plan to let people configure their BandwidthRateRead > and BandwidthRateWrite separately, but Nick convinced me it would be a > headache to handle even more combinations and permutations. To elaborate: there are some sane combinations, and some insane ones. For example, there's no good way to support having a read limit that's significantly higher than your write limit (since if we do that, servers will read traffic they can't relay), but it's easy to support a write limit that's higher than your read limit (we did it before, and it seemed to work fine). So why not implement just higher write limits? Two reasons. First, there's an interface issue: if there's a feature to set a high write limit, people will expect that setting a low write limit will work too. Second, there's a lack of demand: most people with asymmetric bandwidth (like ADSL and cable modem customers) have higher bandwidth for reading than writing, not the other way around. > If you wanted to think hard about that and send us a patch, I bet we'd > accept it. Agreed. Also, a documentation patch or FAQ entry would also be keen. > > My apologies if this is explained somewhere already and I've missed > > it. > > Hope that helps, > --Roger Yrs, -- Nick Mathewson
Attachment:
pgpC5wdt4AZNd.pgp
Description: PGP signature