Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
At work, we are speaking about the interest to have 10 or 30 connections simultanly to a usenet provider.
Some guys said it change nothing because the 10 or 30 threads will take all the bandwidth available, so the download time will be the same.
Another guys said it change something because you can download more file at the same time.
Someone have a GOOD explanation to this problematic ? :)
Thanks ^^
The NNTP protocol has a lot of latency, so running multiple simultaneous connections can improve the speed of actions, particularly if there's a lot of back and forth with the server. (More recent versions of the protocol have support for streaming, but not many clients or servers know about this yet.) 10-30 sounds like overkill to me, though; usually you get the benefits of avoiding latency with 4-8 connections.
The best thing to do would be to test a variety of different numbers of connections for the exact thing you're trying to do and see which one is faster, though. It's going to depend on what types of actions you're taking.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
A completed project in swift 3.0, I want to update it with ReactiveX frameworks for swift i.e rxSwift, rxCocoa.
My point is as i'm learning reactive it is so different and new for me.
But before doing this I have some question in my mind
Is it worth working, spending time on ReactiveX?
Does it increase the performance of the application?
What do you personally think about the future of ReactiveX?
There are certain topics of contention in the rx-world. I will give u that.
But if ur previous project version did not have rx (in any language), then changes are its bulky.
Imagine this:-
Without Rx:- (we need to pull data)
- u query a data structure/function/service
- a value is returned
With Rx:- (data is already pushed down to us, we do not need to req. separately, but just subscribe)
- values are always available on subscription
Rx changes the way u look at file systems/events, etc.
They are all viewed as data-streams which can be emitted using an Observable.
An observer can then request it on subscription.
So, it is the future and yes the code is reduced severely and much much readable.
learning curve is steep, but eventually you end up writing much less code (like you can forget delegates altogether)
for existing projects, it will be a lot of hassle especially if not the whole team is on the same level rx-wise
performance-wise no noticeable difference
(IMHO)
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am searching about how many connections can manage a server, I don't have any idea how to filter in google about it, even it would be fantastic if I could simulate an amount of queries and check by my self how many connections are possible
Thanks
I believe there are 6 available "pipes" when requesting resources from a server; such as, six images come through at a time to help populate a web page. However network speed ultimately determines efficiency of this. There are ways to increase the resources pulled by utilizing services such as Content Delivery Networks (CDN) to serve up only the images for example or a particular sub-domain to serve up query calls.
While the above may be out this scope, I came across this answer regarding concurrent user connections to an Apache server and how to manage counts.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I know this as been asked but couldn't find an answer that I understand...
Some people told me about the main thing are sagas, but it doesn't look such a big advantage to make me spend my bucks on NServiceBus when I already have MSMQ....
That's a little bit like asking "why do I need ASP.NET MVC when I already have HTTP?"... a little tongue-in-cheek, but still with a lot of truth in it.
NServiceBus gives you message serialization, a sensible threading model, routing, and several ready-to-use messaging patterns out of the box.
MSMQ gives you... message queues! And a fairly complicated API with many low level options that give you no real pit of succes...
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
Because of the outcome of another question I asked: Push or Local notifications alerting user to change between saved and remote data
I have decided to tackle Push Notifications head on. I don't, however, really know where to begin when buying a server. Once I start following tutorials and the like, I should be good to follow along relatively unchallenged, but I'd hate to buy a server not capable of running background processes, installing SSL certificates, and making outgoing TLS connections on certain ports (Those were the requirements on one tutorial). Could anyone recommend a company that offers servers at relatively cheap prices since I don't want to spend huge amounts on it, and have the correct specifications for push notifications. I live in the UK, but since I'm localising the app a couple of countries, would it be worth having the server in another country?
Anyway, any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Mike
I would consider using a service like Urban Airship to start. https://go.urbanairship.com/accounts/register/
It'll be free until you are doing more than 1 million pushes a month and will save you the hassle of setting up a server.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am looking to write a simple client/server utilizing TCP sockets. Any ideas how to do network programming in Go?
Go has fine support for networking.
For a server, the easiest thing to do is have your main() start a tcp accept loop and spawn a goroutine to handle each request.
The first go software I wrote was a memcached server. You may want to check out gomemcached for an idea of how to get started on servers.
Clients shouldn't be particularly harder. In many cases, it may make the most sense to have a shared client with goroutines for inbound communication much like I use in gomemcached for communicating with the actual storage layer.
Of course, this isn't the only way. Perhaps you'll find something better as you experiment.