[Spread-users] Public CVS?

Sean Chittenden sean-cnds-spread-users at chittenden.org
Wed Sep 19 00:14:08 EDT 2001

> OK. Maybe I'm not conspiracy minded enough, but I didn't quite follow
> this... If you mean that corporate types could use Spread and not give us
> credit or notice and lie about it, then yes, they can, they always can,
> and my view is that you will never win dealing with cheaters and liars as
> they will always be better and it then I want to be. So I want to minimize
> their negative impact on me (and CNDS and SC) and spend my time working
> with honest people and reputable companies who know that our work together
> can be a 'win-win' deal (as the business types and game-theorists say)

Actually, my thoughts weren't along the cheat/steal lines, so much as a
corporation not wanting the developers to be privy to what corporations
are using their work.

In any case, I've got an account, it took 15min to have it setup and am
working away happily with it.  My thoughts on anon CVS are known, but
now that I'm far enough along that I need spread working, I caved am now
chunking away getting a distributed persistence layer/module/interface
working for ruby.  That said, here's a technical question re: spread.

How well does spread work for large objects?  I'm wondering whether or
not I should have the spread session managers open up a TCP port for
large blobs of data.  Has anyone done any benchmarking to figure out at
what size a piece of data should be sent over the wire via TCP vs
spread/UDP?  I'd think that latency, throughput of the network, and the
size of the messages will make a difference, but am wondering if there's
decent formulaic way of having this dynamically determined based off of
the parameters in the spread daemon.  Any thoughts?


PS Feel free to change the Subject:, this current topic is depressing

Sean Chittenden

More information about the Spread-users mailing list