On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 11:25:08AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> 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.No, we can't. Because in general we do not control the speed at which the data is coming in - we don't control it for requests (though we try to optimize it in routing), and we don't control it at all for inserts, which may be malicious. So if I implement what you say, Mallory can simply start a really slow insert of a huge file on your node, and your node will not send anything else until it has finished - a low-bandwidth DoS. > > 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? We shall see. The node you are sending the QR to may itself be overloaded. However, the QR should have timed out before that. I will look into it when I can reproduce it locally. > > 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. Not necessarily, for splitfiles. > > 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? -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
