Re: [Pan-users] Re: Re: Too many connections error

[Steven Adeff]

On 4/7/06, Duncan <address@hidden> wrote:
> Steven Adeff posted on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 08:13:21 -0400:
> > wait, my news server lets me make 8 connections, so will Pan only make 4
> > connections even if I tell it to make more?
>
> One of PAN's prime features (and thus a big no-no for change, as far as
> Charles is concerned, and I agree) has been that it's 100% GNKSA
> compliant.  One of the GNKSA points is that multiple connections be
> possible, but that the newsreader not abuse them or the server.  As
> defined in GNKSA (and it's a generally observed standard elsewhere as
> well, so GNKSA is in good company), that means limiting to no more than
> four connections, to prevent possibly DOSing the server.
>
> That said, Charles has on several occasions pointed out the file and
> function in the source where the 4 connection hard limit is set, and
> suggested that individual users can change the appropriate line and
> recompile, if desired.  That's what the GPL is all about -- giving the
> users that right, and PAN wouldn't be GPL if its developers didn't believe
> in it.

a fair option...


> Alternatively, one can always set up two separate logical servers within
> PAN, just pointing them at the same remote news server.  Pre 0.9x, that
> meant separately scheduling downloads on each server, but if I'm reading
> the 0.9x features correctly, that's no longer necessary.  Simply setup the
> two multiple logical servers within PAN, configure one of them for the
> mod-4 connections and the others for 4 connections each to get the allowed
> number of connections, and you should be set.

that sounds like a better plan. plus my server offers more than one
port to connect to, so I could have each logical server point to a
different port as well. I don't think the server folks care, they
offer all three ports and all 8 connections available at any time to
users.


> > Also, how "smart" is Pan in this regard. Say I'm downloading some
> > binaries and decide I want to peruse another group. If I elect to
> > download headers what will 0.9x do, wait for the binaries to finish or
> > use a connection percentage to download the headers?
>
> "Headers" (really overviews, a subset of headers) normally take one
> connection per server.  (Of course, if you have multiple logical servers
> setup...)  Often, on servers capping connection speeds (keep in mind that
> more than two connections on servers /not/ capping per connection speed
> is likely counterproductive, as the computer resources required to track
> the extra connections aren't free, and neither is context switching
> between all those connection threads), overview downloads won't be capped
> as a message download would be. Thus, one connection will often fill the
> bandwidth of several, for overview downloads.
>
> More directly answering your question, PAN's decently smart, even in
> 0.14.x.  It won't interfere with individual message segment downloading,
> but (from memory, I haven't used the feature in awhile as I use klibido
> for binaries now, as I mentioned) it queues new tasks at the top (unless
> you tell it not to, the save-as dialog allows the choice of top or bottom,
> for instance), so they get processed at the soonest opportunity --
> immediately after the first individual segment download completion.  In
> any case, there's the task manager available.  If you don't like the queue
> ordering, open that and switch it.
>
> Note that "a connection percentage" distorts the picture.  A single
> connection can be doing only one thing at once.  As tasks reach the top of

right, but if I say have 8 connections and I'd like to use 2 thats
25%, if I have 4 and I use 25% its one, but the real point of using
percent is that I only want to say use 25% of my "bandwidth" allocated
by the newserver to get headers if I'm downloading other stuff, then I
could put in 25% and then Pan could figure out how many connections to
use for header download. It's really just another way of looking at
it. My main concern is that I'd like to be able to download headers
NOW sometimes, even if I'm downloading binaries at the same time. Not
always, but it would be nice =D


> Again, I'm waiting a bit before I try 0.9x, so I can't answer
> specifically for it.  Barring bugs and possibly incompletely implemented
> features, the same general process should apply, however, with the
> exception being that 0.9x can automate more of the multi-server
> handling, as it's the logical approach.

and us talking about it may give Charles ideas to try...

--
Steve