Hacker Read

redeeman · 2022-07-27 06:12:39

how about saying "limit: XGB/gbit/whatever, but IF we feel like it, you might be allowed more"

davidcann | karma 1083 | avg karma 5.39 · | 2010-10-04 18:54:29+00:00

I don't know, but do you have a suggestion for another limit?

dang | karma 18142 | avg karma 0.25 · | 2014-12-01 14:27:44

That sounds like a good idea. What should the limit be?

vouaobrasil | karma 3407 | avg karma 2.32 · | 2023-02-13 21:19:14

That is an interesting case study. Their limit probably is not ideal, but I think something similar with a different limit, would be good for us too.

sigzero | karma 4147 | avg karma 1.62 · | 2012-01-24 13:26:11+00:00

Limit its size...and limit terms.

xnx | karma 10086 | avg karma 3.19 · | 2023-09-06 07:37:54

Amen. Enforce the limit as written or change the limit.

bryanlarsen | karma 33883 | avg karma 3.16 · | 2023-11-17 11:39:18

Capacity is the appropriate metric when talking about what we could do.

bilsbie | karma 6199 | avg karma 3.76 · | 2022-08-08 10:08:47

Great question. I feel more is better at this point and we’re not near any hard limit but I don’t know what a maximum would be.

prepend | karma 20867 | avg karma 2.84 · | 2023-04-01 10:54:08

Everything has limits. The limits should be based on hardware limitations, not arbitrary limits. The limits should increase over time.

seanmcq | karma 140 | avg karma 3.59 · | 2011-01-12 11:59:44

The limit justifications are fairly simple, you've already listed a dozen things you don't do that you know would take you over the limit.

In the presence of no limit, you, and most people, would do those things. It would use radically more bandwidth.

reply

kuu | karma 1852 | avg karma 3.99 · | 2021-05-04 15:14:09+00:00

So basically what I said:

> And of course, don't pretend to put limits at 10 when they weren't earlier on.

reply

Gracana | karma 3569 | avg karma 2.83 · | 2017-01-24 00:49:59+00:00

What if you need more than you're allowed?

TomMarius | karma 758 | avg karma 0.28 · | 2018-02-08 14:48:42+00:00

None, a limit like this would be illegal in my country.

giuliomagnifico | karma 40577 | avg karma 8.14 · | 2021-07-04 06:08:51+00:00

I agree but all of your words don’t fit into the title/limit :-)

PS: if someone have access to the pdf paper it would be great to share it!

reply

MrOwnPut | karma 448 | avg karma 1.32 · | 2023-01-11 12:56:37

I asked you the current regulation density and what your desired adjustment would be.

I assume you knew since you were advocating loosening the restriction. What's the restriction?

How much more dense should it be in your suggestion?

Until it's decided, no one can proceed with your idea right?

reply

barbazoo | karma 7012 | avg karma 2.4 · | 2023-08-11 13:06:01

Depends on the limit and how it's implemented

inshadows | karma 332 | avg karma 0.83 · | 2020-07-01 16:05:05

Why wonder what my attitude would be with lower limit? Default limit is 8192 and it's OK for use case exemplified by entr and you can easily change it.

ajkirwin | karma 860 | avg karma 2.26 · | 2009-01-16 14:00:06

So put in some kind of limits. I am EXTREMELY wary of using anything that doesn't define limits. As I can have the rug pulled out from under me.

pnathan | karma 11370 | avg karma 2.87 · | 2014-02-18 17:21:25+00:00

1+.

IMO, You need several sets of limits: standard limits posted to the consumer, engineering limits posted to the techie/maintenance guy/developer/etc, and actual limits.... each of those is comfortably beyond the others. Know the actual limit, but design well under that if at all possible, because the system will be misused.

reply

boppo1 | karma 3181 | avg karma 1.9 · | 2021-10-12 18:30:28

I like this approach. I'm likely to overload future me though. How do you determine where the limit is?