ietf-nntp Re: INN 2.x-CURRENT against a Cyclone server...
Stan O. Barber
sob at verio.net
Mon Jan 25 22:44:57 PST 1999
rra at stanford.edu is not on the ietf-nntp-post list, so I am forwarding this.
>From sob at announcer.academ.com Mon Jan 25 11:55:20 1999
Received: from academ.com (root at ACADEM.COM [126.96.36.199])
by announcer.academ.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA27347
for <ietf-nntp at ANNOUNCER.ACADEM.COM>; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:55:20 -0600 (CST)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [188.8.131.52])
by academ.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id LAA01725
for <ietf-nntp at academ.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:55:19 -0600 (CST)
Received: (qmail 5905 invoked by uid 50); 25 Jan 1999 17:55:07 -0000
To: inn-workers at isc.org, ietf-nntp at academ.com
Subject: Re: INN 2.x-CURRENT against a Cyclone server...
References: <199901251609.IAA28881 at karoshi.ucsd.edu>
From: Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: Brian Kantor's message of "Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:09:18 -0800
Date: 25 Jan 1999 09:55:07 -0800
Message-ID: <yl7lubutj8.fsf at windlord.stanford.edu>
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/Emacs 19.34
Brian Kantor <brian at karoshi.ucsd.edu> writes:
> I also question whether there is any great win in having multiple feeds
> open between peers. Assuming that the programs at both ends are running
> at full disk system saturation, there should be no advantage.
I have several peers where the first saturation point reached in a feed is
network latency, not disk, and opening multiple connections provides a
noticeable increase in throughput (the feed doesn't keep up without
multiple channels and does keep up with them).
> An exception to this is when the receiving system has its articles
> distributed on different disk systems by newsgroup or group type, and
> the feed splits its sending in the same manner. Because there is some
> probability that this will occur unintentionally in a pairing which has
> not been explicitly set up this way, multiple overlapping feed channels
> can show some improvement over a single channel, but not consistently.
I think it's somewhat unlikely that multiple channels defined as carrying
the exact same traffic (which is the case here) are going to see that
different of distribution across disk systems.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the ietf-nntp