As I said, this workaround is not bad...(Although it works better now with this config I posted in the previous msg)
But, the way you say, sounds like it doesn't really make a difference to use priorities or not. What's the purpose then of using priorities without the "strict" flag in Newspro ?
And also, why not having the strict flag work per priority level (and not per server) ? Would it be difficult to implement ? It sounds a bit more logical to me, or not ? (After all, why would it download from a server with priority 1, if the server with prio 100 has the body - as in my first config...)
Strict mode problem ?
so what you want to have - strict on per priority level (so if you mark a priority strict - other servers with the same priority will be marked strict too) and if something is above a strict priority it won't pass to a lower than the strict priority, so a non-strict priority can be 'strict' or 'non-strict' depending on article destinations.
it is a bit complicated, maybe simpler models are possible.
it is a bit complicated, maybe simpler models are possible.
The purpose of the priorities is exactly what you want it to be. Taking the strict flag away will simply allow additional tasks to be added on the lower priority servers up to your overall maximum task limit. Example:
Server A - priority 5, 4 task limit
Server B - priority 4, 3 task limit
Server C - priority 3, 2 task limit
Overall maximum tasks for downloading articles is 6
Once you begin a download, the program works downward in priorities adding tasks. It will start with 4 tasks from server A, and add 2 tasks from server B to get a total of 6 tasks. My observation is this is as pure as the article completion/presence is on each server - ie - if an article is not present on Server A, it may, at a point in time, try it on Server B, and you'll see 3 tasks each. You may see Server C pop in every now and then to fetch an article or two, but, generally speaking, you'll keep 4 tasks from A and 2 from B.
Setting the strict flag on any server will prevent adding tasks from a lower priority server until the articles have all been tried on the strict server. So, if server A is strict, you only get 4 tasks even though your overall max is 6. If an article fails on A, then you'll see B pop in. Even though B isn't set to strict, C will likely remain untouched. If A isn't very complete, after you've tried the articles on A and gotten all it has, the server will work between B and C to get the remaining. Since the max tasks is set to 6 and B and C together only allow 5, you'll likely see both servers downloading at their max tasks. All of this, of course, depends on how complete each server is. If A has 80% completion, you'll get all the pieces it has, with B filling just about all the gap, C popping in when you get below 6 tasks and an article available on it.
If you set B to strict, also, you'll try every article on A first, the failed ones then will be tried on B, and anything B can't supply, C will do.
I am very puzzled at what you're trying to do. I have to assume that the supernews account is from your ISP and free, capped on speed like mine is. The other higher priority services must also be free or dirt cheap. Most users of this program, I would guess, try to avoid their "fill" service unless absolutely necessary (the "fill" service being a premium service with great completion and speed, but a much lower download limit per month). Assuming I'm typical, I have a service with great completion and speed (low retention) which gives me 50 GB/month for 10 bucks. I have Supernews through the ISP, great completion and retention, free, but very speedcapped (2 tasks and about 500 kbps). I also have a premium service to fill in the gaps those can't fill. My max tasks allows the cheap service and Supernews to use their max tasks (8 and 2 respectively). Both are set to strict, and the premium service hardly ever is touched.
Without knowing the pricing on each service, restrictions on tasks, speed, download volume, and how much you're trying to download, I don't know that I can advise you much more. My thinking is you're making the priority and strict flagging more complicated than you need to if you're not maxing out your download volume on the services you have.
Server A - priority 5, 4 task limit
Server B - priority 4, 3 task limit
Server C - priority 3, 2 task limit
Overall maximum tasks for downloading articles is 6
Once you begin a download, the program works downward in priorities adding tasks. It will start with 4 tasks from server A, and add 2 tasks from server B to get a total of 6 tasks. My observation is this is as pure as the article completion/presence is on each server - ie - if an article is not present on Server A, it may, at a point in time, try it on Server B, and you'll see 3 tasks each. You may see Server C pop in every now and then to fetch an article or two, but, generally speaking, you'll keep 4 tasks from A and 2 from B.
Setting the strict flag on any server will prevent adding tasks from a lower priority server until the articles have all been tried on the strict server. So, if server A is strict, you only get 4 tasks even though your overall max is 6. If an article fails on A, then you'll see B pop in. Even though B isn't set to strict, C will likely remain untouched. If A isn't very complete, after you've tried the articles on A and gotten all it has, the server will work between B and C to get the remaining. Since the max tasks is set to 6 and B and C together only allow 5, you'll likely see both servers downloading at their max tasks. All of this, of course, depends on how complete each server is. If A has 80% completion, you'll get all the pieces it has, with B filling just about all the gap, C popping in when you get below 6 tasks and an article available on it.
If you set B to strict, also, you'll try every article on A first, the failed ones then will be tried on B, and anything B can't supply, C will do.
I am very puzzled at what you're trying to do. I have to assume that the supernews account is from your ISP and free, capped on speed like mine is. The other higher priority services must also be free or dirt cheap. Most users of this program, I would guess, try to avoid their "fill" service unless absolutely necessary (the "fill" service being a premium service with great completion and speed, but a much lower download limit per month). Assuming I'm typical, I have a service with great completion and speed (low retention) which gives me 50 GB/month for 10 bucks. I have Supernews through the ISP, great completion and retention, free, but very speedcapped (2 tasks and about 500 kbps). I also have a premium service to fill in the gaps those can't fill. My max tasks allows the cheap service and Supernews to use their max tasks (8 and 2 respectively). Both are set to strict, and the premium service hardly ever is touched.
Without knowing the pricing on each service, restrictions on tasks, speed, download volume, and how much you're trying to download, I don't know that I can advise you much more. My thinking is you're making the priority and strict flagging more complicated than you need to if you're not maxing out your download volume on the services you have.
Ed, you give me the feeling that I was not clear. Or that you didn't understand the point.
Let's follow your line. You said:
>"The purpose of the priorities is exactly what you want it to be. Taking the strict flag away will simply allow additional tasks to be added on the lower priority servers up to your overall maximum task limit."
Exactly. That's what I want with server A and B. (C is expensive. That's why I put the strict on B.)
>"Once you begin a download, the program works downward in priorities adding tasks. It will start with 4 tasks from server A, and add 2 tasks from server B to get a total of 6 tasks."
Now imagine if one of these 2 tasks in B fail. The failed task will go directly to C (without trying A - that HAS the body). It doesn't sound too logic to me. That's the point. If something could be better in this way , great. (Actually I improved already my cfg based in what you and Alex showed.)
The way you reply sounds as I'm doing some weird criticism...That's not the intention.
Greetings!
Let's follow your line. You said:
>"The purpose of the priorities is exactly what you want it to be. Taking the strict flag away will simply allow additional tasks to be added on the lower priority servers up to your overall maximum task limit."
Exactly. That's what I want with server A and B. (C is expensive. That's why I put the strict on B.)
>"Once you begin a download, the program works downward in priorities adding tasks. It will start with 4 tasks from server A, and add 2 tasks from server B to get a total of 6 tasks."
Now imagine if one of these 2 tasks in B fail. The failed task will go directly to C (without trying A - that HAS the body). It doesn't sound too logic to me. That's the point. If something could be better in this way , great. (Actually I improved already my cfg based in what you and Alex showed.)
The way you reply sounds as I'm doing some weird criticism...That's not the intention.
Greetings!
What an interesting discussion. I would conclude that for the option "strict" another alternative definition may have been more appropriate:
STRICT = only use this server if no higher priority server has the article available.
instead of
STRICT = only use other lower priority servers if this server doesn't have the article available.
I think this would solve the problem described by marcellos?
Greetings!
STRICT = only use this server if no higher priority server has the article available.
instead of
STRICT = only use other lower priority servers if this server doesn't have the article available.
I think this would solve the problem described by marcellos?
Greetings!