[sldev] Cache speed experiment & results..

[Teravus Ovares]

Does anyone remember AT&T Worldnet?    No?    (tried to go back to metered
dialup connections back in the day)

Best Regards

Teravus


On 6/3/08, Ann Otoole <missannotoole at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   Time Warner is going to try forcing metered bandwith on the cable modem
> community they serve.
> So the ugly head of the end of unlimited bandwith use raises it's head once
> again.
> (Presumably because of those few horrid torrent/movie downloaders messing
> everything up for the rest of the planet. Yes thats right, instead of
> closing off the pipes used by the abusers they choose to make more money by
> harming the community in general. Typical Time Warner choice as opposed to
> upgrading their antiquated copper wire infrastructure eh? anyway i worry
> that heavy SL users (such as content creators) may be about to lose any
> further incentive for bothering with virtual worlds...)
>
> Has anyone measured actual bandwith utilization to the point people can
> predict their usage per month before they get slapped with killer bills?
>
> The reason I mention this is because, although I am also a fan of reduced
> compression overhead, there will no doubt be trade offs required. Perhaps
> there is a way to make compression/decompression more efficient?
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Tateru Nino <tateru.nino at gmail.com>
> To: Dante Tucker <danteferret at gmail.com>
> Cc: Second Life Developer Mailing List <sldev at lists.secondlife.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 1:08:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [sldev] Cache speed experiment & results...
>
> Compromise? A lighterweight compressed cache format? Admittedly, yes,
> the textures would still be coming down as jpeg2000 - which means they
> would have to be decoded and recompressed before they went in the cache
> - which is wasteful. But it's wasteful once per texture transfer, not
> once per texture fetched from the cache.
>
> Use a PNG or vanilla jpg compressor to save space on disk (and let the
> user set the compression quality with a slider to let them decide how
> much bang-for-the-buck they want out of their chosen megabytes of
> storage), then you've got far less work to do decoding than the jpeg2000
> decompressor -- or so I presume. If I got all that fatally wrong, just
> whack me with a rolled up man page.
>
> Dante Tucker wrote:
> > I definatly second this as an option. Provided there is no technical
> > reason this can't be done :)
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Buckaroo Mu <sldev at bitparts.org
> > <mailto:sldev at bitparts.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >    Given the dirt-cheap price of HD space these days, why bother
> >    compressing the cache, given that the decode is so expensive
> >    time-wise? Enlarge the cache maximum size, and toss out the
> >    compression - at least give us an option to try it, and see. A
> >    simple checkbox or debug option "UseCompressedCache" or somesuch
> >    defaulted to yes - then those of us with plenty of space can try
> >    it out. People are screaming about texture load times - I can't
> >    imagine they wouldn't sacrifice some disk space for a large boost
> >    in performance.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> > /index.html
> >
>
> --
> Tateru Nino
> http://www.massively.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080606/495cc05d/attachment.htm