From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Nov 18 14:00:40 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA20308 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 1995 14:00:40 -0800 Received: from hub.org (root@hub.org [199.166.238.138]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA20250 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 1995 14:00:09 -0800 Received: (from scrappy@localhost) by hub.org (8.7.1/8.7.1) id QAA05837; Sat, 18 Nov 1995 16:59:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 16:59:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: re: sup and compress Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Hi... someone mentioned that it might be an idea to turn on compression in the standard sup files, in that it woudl take up more CPU, but less network... ...my question is, if everyone connecting to ftp.freebsd.org were to have compress turned on, and the result being that each file got sent out compressed, wouldn't that adversely affect the speed that the supserver could send out the files, and therefore, it wouldn't take as long to travel the link, but the time would be made up for by waiting for each to compress? I just can't imagine 400 connections X gzip hitting that poor supserver at once, and it actually making the transfer time faster, but that's just me... Marc G. Fournier | Knowledge, Information and Communications, Inc (ki.net) scrappy@hub.org | soon to be: | scrappy@ki.net | For more information, send me email.