Re: draft-cameron-tmux-02.txt

["Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Beast)" <[e-mail]>]

From:  Pete Cameron <[e-mail]>
To:  [e-mail]
Cc:  [e-mail]
>---------  Received message begins Here  ---------
>
>> From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Beast)" <[e-mail]>
>
>...
>
>> Even if this caused degradation for a single ftp session, would it have
>> increased throughput if there had been 10 ftp sesssions?
>
>It actually improved performance for 2 or more sessions to
>and from a pair of hosts.

Is this mentioned in the draft anywhere?

>> It would be excellent if you could characterize what benefits most
>> from tmux other than saying "terminal servers"...
>
>My characterisation of the benefits, are on those protocols
>where an increased delay is acceptable. In my view, these
>are the protocols where people are the recipients of the
>data. People can not notice short delays <50ms and accept
>short delays <200ms. That is why we talk about login
>sessions (changed to interactive sessions in next draft).

If someone was running a heavily loaded ftp server with
some clustering of clients, they might want to tmux to
increase total service.

>Pete

Donald