From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id gEHAFOm/v1/VKAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 14:47:05 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id sMuWEOm/v1/FOwAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 14:47:05 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6C509405D1 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 14:47:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:34290 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kiIY3-0001Cr-OJ for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:47:03 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38188) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kiIXq-0001Bd-DH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:46:50 -0500 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:47654) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kiIXn-0005ps-Hi for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:46:50 -0500 Received: from bell.riseup.net (bell-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ChgZD1QTNzFpR7; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:46:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1606402004; bh=xwNsssx6EecHibuTj11qj9WwEHPUDLIZsA6KsCUDqlU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=sAUHNXGEa1eyfksD63s/tpULvU0wtSdSeTws7bNvcj/h+FXEw4YI5g301bw8lFg5q w4liE69oW9bgWadMQufoL4IQ2RGmwsO7bl96X6t3sNivdONCxnHyCj5AsSGQwP70jU zn1FBiOeQFRyTYF+dxH9Nns3u9OP50eOeOdW7quI= X-Riseup-User-ID: 9B15023A11D0218D38429A8F85FF6936EDF3165F01838AC4C7FA2BC51DCAA68E Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bell.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ChgZ70qMlzJnRZ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:46:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 15:42:02 +0100 From: raingloom To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Thank you for participating in the Guix Day! Message-ID: <20201126154202.3c4f0a1a@riseup.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20201124030056.53f92023@tachikoma.lepiller.eu> <20201124212637.262fffc2@riseup.net> <87wny9hfvx.fsf@rohleder.de> <20201125233153.7f0281f6@riseup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=raingloom@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: inc X-Scanner: ns3122888.ip-94-23-21.eu Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (headers rsa verify failed) header.d=riseup.net header.s=squak header.b=sAUHNXGE; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=riseup.net (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 1.59 X-TUID: IOHj3GTR66oq On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 23:17:57 -0500 Leo Famulari wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:31:53PM +0100, raingloom wrote: > > Oh yea, regarding that, I really think it would have made a whole > > lot more sense if people just sent in a photo, instead of DDoS-ing > > the network. > > I don't know how BBB works nor did I measure it, but one can expect a > videochat feed to require basically the same amount of bandwidth as > watching a Youtube video. Since people reported everyone turning their cameras on significantly degrading performance, that is unlikely to be an accurate analogy. My guess is that it's more similar to watching N simultaneous streams, where N is the number of people with active webcams.