[sldev] Bandwidth requirements

[Tim Shephard]

I agree David, with terrabyte hard drives coming out, it would be nice
to hear some background to the decision to cap out caches to 1GB (at
least according to the user interface).

I'd like to say it's a very large gaping hole in the architecture, but
I think there must be some reasoning since it's been this way for so
long and theoretically would be very easy to fix.

Can a linden comment on this?

Regards,

Tim.

On 1/22/07, David Baker <david_baker at iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have been looking at the open source codebase with an eye to seeing what
> can be done to reduce the bandwidth requirements of the client - both from
> the client's perspective and from LL's perspective.  My general thoughts on
> this have been that the client would benefit from:
> 1) a caching system that actually works - if SL can take 1GB of my hard
> drive to cache things it downloads, how come when I log out of SL and
> immediately log back in in the same place everything has gone grey?
> 2) the ability to share assets on a peer-to-peer basis - which should
> hopefully reduce loads on LL servers (possibly allowing them to support mroe
> avatars per simulator), improve load times for those of us in far-flung
> places and potentially permit the favoring of data from other users sharing
> an ISP.
>
> My motivation in this is that, as an Australian, I am on a capped data
> Internet plan and when you only have 20GB/month available to you the fact
> that SL likes to use 200-250MB/hour gets quite limiting.  Anything that can
> be done to reduce this would definitely improve take-up in Australia (and
> remove my temptation to upgrade to a $130/month plan).
>
> Has anyone else been looking at this?  Care to compare notes?
>
> Regards,
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>
>
>