Subj : Compression in Binkd
To   : Wilfred van Velzen
From : Michiel van der Vlist
Date : Wed Jan 27 2016 10:43 pm

Hello Wilfred,

On Wednesday January 27 2016 18:39, you wrote to me:

 WV>>> You said almost, but just last week I had a 3 hour binkd
 WV>>> connection, that could have been done 70x faster, with better
 WV>>> compression! And that connection interfered with other (fido)
 WV>>> processes.

 MvdV>> Yeah, it made a just in time, same as last week pointlist
 MvdV>> segment to be delivered five minutes late.

 WV> ... And it missed the deadline.

Big deal since it was the same as last week's...

 WV> Bandwith is still a limited resource and more expensive than computer
 WV> cycles. Afaik data transfer is still metered by the byte on the
 WV> peering level. So you might not pay for it directly. But it probably
 WV> makes a difference how much data is transfered by all their customers
 WV> combined, what internet providers will have to charge as monthly
 WV> subscription rate...

True, but the traffic generated by fidonet is neglegible compared to all the 
other traffic.

Also I wonder if binkd compression would have made any difference in the 
incident you metioned. I send a large compressed file, but made an unlucky 
choice for the compressor. Could the binkd compression have compensated for 
that? Maybe, but it would not have, since it is configured to not try to 
compress already compressed files.

As I said before, this was just a one time incident that will not be repeated. 
Next time I send such a file, I will use a better compressor. One does not base 
a policy on a one time incident that will in all likehood never repeat.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

.