|
Notes |
|
|
|
This is not a bug, it's a feature. ;)
We do local source requests once every 5 minutes and global source-requests every 0000017:0000021 minutes, so most newly added files will have a delay before sources are requested (and found, if any). |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it's stupid but wouldn't it be smarter to set a timer for each download so the intervals would still be respected but downloads could start faster? |
|
|
|
|
There already is such intervals.
As I said we do local source requests once every 5 minutes (15 files at a time), however the individual files are only queued for requests once every 0000009:0000013 minutes. |
|
|
|
|
|
And I should probably note, that we _wont_ change this frequency. For one thing, lugdunum would probably kill us if we did. Besides, +/- 5 minutes wont do much of a difference in the long run when it comes to downloading the files, so just arm youself with a bit of patience. |
|
|
|
|
I think we missunderstood, or I just don't understand. :)
I'm not speaking about changing the frequency.
What I mean is that when we add a file, why doesn't it starts a new timer, just for this file, which would be used for this file only and would not affect the frequency (the sources would be asked to the server at the same interval but counting from the time at which the file has been added insted of the time amule starts.
Sorry if I bug you but I'm also trying to understand why am I wrong, if I am...
I agree w/ you it is of no importance on big files, that's why I precised "on small files, it often takes more time for starting than for downloading."
Thank you for your patience |
|
|
|
(0001411)
|
|
Kry
|
|
2005-11-04 22:31
|
|
Because you would do one request per file and lug will really, really kill us, you would be disturbing and breaking the network, and everything would collapse.
Really, think before reopening something that has already be closed. |
|