From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Oct 15 10:29:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA04388 for ports-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:29:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports) Received: from news1.gtn.com (news1.gtn.com [192.109.159.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA04383; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:29:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andreas@klemm.gtn.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by news1.gtn.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with UUCP id SAA23897; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:15:36 +0100 (MET) Received: (from andreas@localhost) by klemm.gtn.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA22918; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:13:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from andreas) Message-ID: <19971015191353.65213@klemm.gtn.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:13:53 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm To: Garrett Wollman Cc: Donald Burr , Kristian Kennaway , ports-jp@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, committers@FreeBSD.ORG, jraynard@jraynard.demon.co.uk, asami@cs.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: 8 days until 2.2.5... Administrative notices. References: <9710150749.AA14643@bragg> <199710151416.KAA17656@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.84 In-Reply-To: <199710151416.KAA17656@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; from Garrett Wollman on Wed, Oct 15, 1997 at 10:16:54AM -0400 X-Disclaimer: A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT SMP Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, Oct 15, 1997 at 10:16:54AM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > > > Getting foo.tar.gz (380k/1522k), 25% done, 3.6 K/sec, 0:18 remaining... > > > The k/sec figure would be useful to make sure you're getting the most ouf > > or your modem (or to brag about your high speed internet connection), and > > the time remaining is would be very useful for deciiding whether you want > > to sit there and wait for the port to download, or if you want to abort > > it). > > Except that the way TCP works, they are both totally bogus, > particularly in the presence of even a small packet loss rate. Why ? If you continously use the time needed up to now and what has already been fetched in comparison to what needs to be fetched ? If there are package losses, then you get no data. If you don't get data, the time grows, the amount of fetched data (percentage) stays constand and the estimated time needed increases steadily... Andreas /// -- Andreas Klemm powered by ,,symmetric multiprocessor FreeBSD'' andreas@klemm.gtn.com - http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/SMP.html andreas@FreeBSD.ORG - http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/benches.html