Talk:Network throughput

message: :::::::::: (heading added later for clarity --Alf 11:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latency 

message: :::::::::: (heading added later for clarity --Alf 11:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latency 2 

message: :::::::::: (heading added later for clarity --Alf 11:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bandwidth 

message: throughput is used in a lot of different contexts to describe the rate at which a process works -- for example, throughput of an assembly line, throughput of a polling place, throughput of a communications channel (slightly more general than the discussion of internet connections here), and throughput of a CPU (quite relevant to the latency/throughput dichotomy raised in the article).  There could/should be some discussion of queueing theory and the importance of throughput reserve to reduce queues; of traffic on roads (maximum throughput of a freeway occurs when the traffic is so heavy it drops to about 30 MPH); and of things like the throughput/power relation in engines. zowie 18:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the title is too general. For instance, the Latency page is a disambig page and the Latency related to this article is Latency (engineering). The article titled "Throughput" should be a disambig page like Latency and this page should be renamed to "Throughput (communications)" or some other descriptor. -Etienne 08:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objections on reaneming this article to something like Throughput (communications)? Any other name suggestions? --Alf 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too general a title?

message: Throughput is a term used in the pipeline industry; in case someone knows how to put it in the article. --McTrixie 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OIl and Natural Gas 

message: Refering to Talk:Throughput#Too general a title? this article should be renamed to something like Throughput (communications) and a disambiguation page written for Throughput. Please offer your suggestions for names. --Tunheim 08:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Don't forget to redirect all pages pointing here. There are about 150 pages. Mange01 12:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: It will take me several days to organize and source this article fully. Should I leave the unsourced tag alone until I complete the process? Also, is it appropriate to flag my own posts for copy editing until a more experienced editor can look at my work? HatlessAtless (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Tag During Rework? 

message: At line2: every user typically achieves a throughput of approximately N/R
should be
every user typically achieves a throughput of approximately R/N
61.31.141.8 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An error in the section "Multi-user considerations" 

message: Some weird error message appeared below this article's page, by the references:
"Cite error: There are =ref=  tags on this page, but the references will not show without a =references/= tag."
88.105.10.35 (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error Message 

message: Hi Dsimic,
I see that you've reverted my edit, saying that it basically duplicates already existing content. Let me tell you my point. I came to the article, trying to understand what a throughput means. Usually the first sentence of a concept in the WP, summarises or explains its meaning or most common use. In this case, I saw that it's not the case, so I had to go to other sources to learn what a throughput is, after learning and taking notes, I came back to the article writing a simple and understandable lead. The lead as it is now, only explains what throughput is in a specific domain. However in other domains, it also means other things...Therefore, imho a simple one or two-sentence lead explaining the meaning is necessary. --Universal Life (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted back. What we need is a more understandable lead. And notice that the article's name is not Throughput (communication networks). So, we shouldn't start the article's lead as In communication networks, such as.... We should start by defining what throughput means. Not to be misunderstood, I'm not insisting at all in my own wording...I actually encourage you or anyone to go and change it (not revert it back, but to improve it). Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello there!  Totally understood, and you're right that the lead section could summarize the article much better.  Went ahead and  the lead section, please check it out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, that's great! :) If I'll have time, I'll see later if some wording can be bettered too. I think the article should mention high-throughput as well. Anyway, as it is now, it's much better than it was before :) Thank you. --Universal Life (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I'm glad you like it. :)  Went ahead and  the lead section a bit further...  As always, please feel free to contribute to the article, you're more than welcome to do that. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead