Oops more testing was required....

Ben Escoto bescoto at stanford.edu
Sat Jun 28 15:55:13 EST 2003

>>>>> "jws" == jw schultz <jw at pegasys.ws>
>>>>> wrote the following on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:22 -0700

  jws> Long term, i think the bwlimit stuff needs a complete
  jws> reexamination.  In addition to the sleeping times and spreading
  jws> the load as in the "smoother bandwidth limiting" but also its
  jws> converse, Craig's buffering.  I suspect the approach is to have
  jws> a network write routine that deals with buffering, write
  jws> splitting and sleeping in a coordinated way.

Do you think it is necessary for rsync to have to have bandwidth
control at all?  It seems this should be someone else's
responsibility.  For instance, if rsync is run over a pipe, something
like cstream or throttle could be used (I don't know if these are
really suitable, but there's no reason a separate utility couldn't do
it).  Even for the daemon, maybe it could be run over some bandwidth
limiting proxy or something, if the OS couldn't limit the bandwidth

Ben Escoto
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 229 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/attachments/20030627/253ee657/attachment.bin

More information about the rsync mailing list