home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: soap.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet
- From: m.hendry@dial.pipex.com (Mathew Hendry)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.networking
- Subject: Re: IRC request
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 02:41:56
- Organization: Private node.
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <19960308.5AD490.30BB@an097.du.pipex.com>
- References: <4gojpu$pjf@hearst.cac.psu.edu> <4grj86$gsa@news.clinet.fi> <slrn44jc7kv.ifi.hkantola@vesuri.Helsinki.FI> <4h731n$bj5@news.uni-c.dk> <19960303.578D88.EFAC@al057.du.pipex.com> <37430@lyssa.owl.de>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: an097.du.pipex.com
- X-Newsreader: TIN [AMIGA 1.3 950726BETA PL0]
-
- Matthias Scheler (tron@lyssa.owl.de) wrote:
- : Mathew Hendry wrote in comp.sys.amiga.networking about "Re: IRC request":
- : > IRC does not need more servers; ...
- :
- : Correct.
- :
- : > ... it needs larger ones with faster links.
- :
- : Wrong.
- :
- : IRC needs a smarter server to server protocoll to avoid sending messages
- : or any other kind of notications to servers which don't have any users
- : on the affected channel.
-
- For servers at the edges of the tree, that would help a lot. For those nearer
- the centre of the tree, which inevitably must handle data relevant to _many_
- servers (and hence many more channels and users), it would make less of a
- difference. The links between these central servers are obviously more
- critical than those around the edges (because they directly affect more
- users), and the only way to resolve their problems would be to increase the
- resources available to them.
-
- -- Mat.
-