 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Interesting comment:
"I wouldn't mind a 2X drop in speed if it means the code is shorter
and easier to read."
I wonder how many program users also wouldn't mind?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Interesting comment:
>
> "I wouldn't mind a 2X drop in speed if it means the code is shorter
> and easier to read."
>
> I wonder how many program users also wouldn't mind?
Big smoking "sigh".
Skype has been running here for around a week, and it used 1 hour of CPU
time. Just being idle showing its tray icon, I haven't made any call.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Interesting comment:
>>
>> "I wouldn't mind a 2X drop in speed if it means the code is shorter
>> and easier to read."
>>
>> I wonder how many program users also wouldn't mind?
>
> Big smoking "sigh".
>
> Skype has been running here for around a week, and it used 1 hour of CPU
> time. Just being idle showing its tray icon, I haven't made any call.
It might conceivably need to send heartbeat messages over the network or
something to maintain presence information. There are 168 hours in a
week, so it still represents only 0.59% CPU time...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Big smoking "sigh".
>>
>> Skype has been running here for around a week, and it used 1 hour of
>> CPU time. Just being idle showing its tray icon, I haven't made any call.
>
> It might conceivably need to send heartbeat messages over the network or
> something to maintain presence information. There are 168 hours in a
> week, so it still represents only 0.59% CPU time...
I think it's too much CPU usage to just send heartbeat messages.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Big smoking "sigh".
>>>
>>> Skype has been running here for around a week, and it used 1 hour of
>>> CPU time. Just being idle showing its tray icon, I haven't made any
>>> call.
>>
>> It might conceivably need to send heartbeat messages over the network
>> or something to maintain presence information. There are 168 hours in
>> a week, so it still represents only 0.59% CPU time...
>
> I think it's too much CPU usage to just send heartbeat messages.
Possibly send hearbeat messages to confirm it's still running. Possibly
receive (and verify) heartbeat messages to confirm the network is still
OK. Perhaps check if any updates are available. (Who knows, maybe it
even installed one?)
If you don't like it, there's a fairly simple solution... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
...
> Big smoking "sigh".
>
> Skype has been running here for around a week, and it used 1 hour of CPU
> time. Just being idle showing its tray icon, I haven't made any call.
From:
http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/security/howto/2006-06-21/
Best Practices for Skype Users
...
5.
A common recommendation is to only start Skype for pre-arranged calls
and to shut it down when it is not being used.
...
We have seen super-node problems when Skype is left running on
unattended systems who have not blocked access to ports 80/tcp and
443/tcp. Shutting Skype down helps to prevent your system from being
promoted to a super-node and consuming resources on behalf of others.
...
Also read the last part of this section at the bottom of the page:
Skype -- Super-Nodes, the "big" problem
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> We have seen super-node problems when Skype is left running on
> unattended systems who have not blocked access to ports 80/tcp and
> 443/tcp. Shutting Skype down helps to prevent your system from being
> promoted to a super-node and consuming resources on behalf of others.
I have port 443 closed, and port 80 open and in use by a webserver.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Skype has been running here for around a week, and it used 1 hour of CPU
> time. Just being idle showing its tray icon, I haven't made any call.
Does skype still leach your bandwidth if you're not NATted?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:47318534$1@news.povray.org...
> Darren New wrote:
> > The URL says it all.
> >
> >
http://augustss.blogspot.com/2007/11/benchmarking-ray-tracing-haskell-vs.html
>
> No it doesn't - it doesn't say vs what! :-P
bear with me, i've been out sick most the week and haven't had my coffee yet
this morning..
but i swear i read that as something like "Benchmarking Ray Tracing:
Haskell -vs- HTML"
rofl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ross wrote:
> bear with me, i've been out sick most the week and haven't had my coffee yet
> this morning..
>
> but i swear i read that as something like "Benchmarking Ray Tracing:
> Haskell -vs- HTML"
>
> rofl
Hehehe.
Well, that's a debate a few people have had. (There are various Haskell
libraries for building HTML programatically - not to mention doing CGI,
or even a full web server which is rumoured to out-perform Apache...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
