This isn't working:
Oct 26, 2003 5:53:46 PM (freenet.PeerPacketMessage, write interface thread, NORMAL):
Took 1143 seconds to send [EMAIL PROTECTED]:freenet.Message: QueryRejected @null @
29166ecc7cf191: htl=1, reason=Node
overloaded:QueryRejected{Close=false,Sustain=false,DataLength=0,{HopsToLive=1,Reason=Node
overloaded,Attenuation=1,UniqueID=29166ecc7cf191,}}:null:true,
prio=1(notifySuccess(null)! (last connection registered 7778 seconds ago on [EMAIL
PROTECTED] (DSA(64a4 40e5 401b b3af 9d19 47be 0436 189c 3407
5eab),tcp/12.247.157.104:26694, sessions=1, presentations=1, ID=DSA(64a4 40e5 401b
b3af 9d19 47be 0436 189c 3407 5eab)): outbound attempts=2:13/15
Oct 26, 2003 5:53:46 PM (freenet.PeerPacketMessage, write interface thread, NORMAL):
Took 2210 seconds to send [EMAIL PROTECTED]:freenet.Message: QueryRejected @null @
cbb4370c3201e6f4: htl=5, reason=Required protocol version is
1.47:QueryRejected{Close=false,Sustain=false,DataLength=0,{HopsToLive=5,Reason=Required
protocol version is 1.47,Attenuation=0,UniqueID=cbb4370c3201e6f4,}}:null:true,
prio=1(notifySuccess(null)! (last connection registered 81 seconds ago on [EMAIL
PROTECTED] (DSA(d723 922d 6e7a 7226 6203 498d d358 e88c 03dc
b14d),tcp/24.208.128.31:30721, sessions=1, presentations=1, ID=DSA(d723 922d 6e7a 7226
6203 498d d358 e88c 03dc b14d)): outbound attempts=0:0/0
Oct 26, 2003 5:53:49 PM (freenet.PeerPacketMessage, write interface thread, NORMAL):
Took 317 seconds to send [EMAIL PROTECTED]:freenet.Message: QueryRejected @null @
8c6d4c8c4f4cbf86: htl=18, reason=Node
overloaded:QueryRejected{Close=false,Sustain=false,DataLength=0,{HopsToLive=12,Reason=Node
overloaded,Attenuation=1,UniqueID=8c6d4c8c4f4cbf86,}}:null:true,
prio=1(notifySuccess(null)! (last connection registered 553 seconds ago on [EMAIL
PROTECTED] (DSA(66d7 6419 5569 c1b1 469d 0492 702a 00a8 303e
5950),tcp/12.235.108.80:17704, sessions=1, presentations=1, ID=DSA(66d7 6419 5569 c1b1
469d 0492 702a 00a8 303e 5950)): outbound attempts=1:0/1
Oct 26, 2003 5:53:51 PM (freenet.PeerPacketMessage, write interface thread, NORMAL):
Took 2045 seconds to send [EMAIL PROTECTED]:freenet.Message: QueryRejected @null @
8498fa9f302fb500: htl=7, reason=Required protocol version is
1.47:QueryRejected{Close=false,Sustain=false,DataLength=0,{HopsToLive=7,Reason=Required
protocol version is 1.47,Attenuation=0,UniqueID=8498fa9f302fb500,}}:null:true,
prio=1(notifySuccess(null)! (last connection registered 86 seconds ago on [EMAIL
PROTECTED] (DSA(d723 922d 6e7a 7226 6203 498d d358 e88c 03dc
b14d),tcp/24.208.128.31:30721, sessions=1, presentations=1, ID=DSA(d723 922d 6e7a 7226
6203 498d d358 e88c 03dc b14d)): outbound attempts=0:0/0
I have 304 transmitting (from an 8KB/s upstream) and if my CPU was
faster it feels like it would want to devolve into a 1500 transmitting
to achieve the 5 bytes/sec transmit rate it wants to be. The problem
is that general says I am using 30% of my upstream. 304 transmitting
using 30%? Does this mean that 70% of my upstream is free or that 70%
is used for other things? If for other things, what things?
Instead, lets queue up the transmits and do the very last one queued
first, before all others. If the upstream isn't 100% pegged, open up
another, keep doing that until we peg the upstream. Once it is
pegged, we don't transmit any others until it unpegs.
What we have now feels like a collapsed network that is grinding under
its own request load. Queing up a QR for 2000 seconds just isn't
right. Is this the design that someone wanted?
And an indication that something is wrong:
Lowest global time estimate 233249ms
Highest global time estimate 1106205ms
that's over 18 minutes. My browser times things out after 60 seconds.
Reading web pages that take 18 minutes per link, isn't useful. Start
with the idea that if they don't read it in the next 10 seconds, they
never want to read it. Gear the network up to make it happen that
way.
As a separate architecture, we need to formalize large content
transfer. Here the queuing technology should be equitable, and FIFO
and can devolve to needing a day to move a file. Actually, if we
register postal addresses per DSA and then when things queue up past 5
days, we can burn a CD and mail it via land mail and get an upper
limit of a week latency and 462 KB/second throughput, assuming 10
DVD-RW disks a day. :-)
Hum, maybe a usenet style architecture and we just pass the most
popular content through to fill the pipe, after that we just trim.
Usenet offers 0 latency, in some respects great anonymity and privacy
and low lawsuit potential. The idea would be that as you request
content, you connect into the edges and as your upstream edge goes
away, you connect to their upstream, when they come back, they connect
lower in the chain. If you can handle a higher upstream, you migrate
closer to the center. If you are unreliable, have a small upstream or
high latency, you migrate to the edges. Most content would be from
one of two connections, one up (nearer to the network center) and one
down, away from the network center.
Old content can be gotten from the edges of the network or from a FIFO
queue from a small fixed % of the upstream of each node.
As not everyone wants the same fixed content from the network, a
dynamic ability to have many such networks all running in parallel.
The trick is then seeing if we can get the anonymity out of such a
design.
Usenet is an interesting comparison. Usenet goes for around $1/gig,
with a 18 to 180 day retention, depending upon how large the avereage
post size is. If some large operator offered freenet access at
$1/gig, would we have a design that was less secure? Fred would
migrate connections to them by itself, and if they were required by
law to log access, would freenet be any different than usenet?
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
