Re: CU-SeeMe Activity Utility (fwd) -- some concerns

Michael Sattler, San Francisco (msattler@jungle.com)
Mon, 3 Oct 1994 20:31:47 -0400


At 10:44 10/3/94, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

>>* Some reflectors may be subject to non-trivial polling overhead

>Most of these concerns can be overcome by only polling sites that request
>or consent to being polled. I'd assume that it wouldn't be done at all
>unless a way of polling can be found that introduces only trivial overhead,
>but if an individual site doesn't want to put up with the amount of added
>overhead, they surely shouldn't have to....

Certainly having every user connecting to a reflector to gauge its usage
uses more bitutrons than a well-written piece of code.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Michael Sattler <msattler@jungle.com> Don't try to teach _/
_/ FTP Software, West Coast Operations a pig to sing; _/
_/ Quality Assurance Manager it's a waste of time _/
_/ http://www.wco.ftp.com/~msattler/ and it annoys the pig. _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/