On October 31, 2003 02:26 am, Mike Stump wrote:
> 6286 is bad.  I mean, there are parts that that are really good, like
> people back off when I QR and the messageSendTime is really, really
> low.  The problem is, one person makes a request, I start moving data,
> and then I QR everything coming in, then, no one talks to me anymore.
> Since I have only one sending, it finishs quickly, then I sit, doing
> nothing.  Sure, I no longer QR, but because I did in the very recent
> past, no one talks to me.  It then takes a long while to get any more
> Qs to get another one to move data, but then I QR everyone, and then
> they stop asking...  Instead of averaging 51k QPH, 7K Success QPH, I
> do 55 QPH, 55 Success QPH.  Notice, looks almost the same, but there
> is no k in there.  So, this is progress, in some way, but we need just
> a tad less progress for it to work well.  I think everything is being
> served up by stable (or 6284 or before) currently.

Funny I have 23 transmitting connections with 6288.  Wonder if your
problem is fixable with configuration?  

> I tried finding the change that did this, none of them looks like they
> would do it.  Anyway, we need to not QR anything, unless we have more
> than at least 5 connections transmitting (or the upstream is saturated
> _and_ it is saturated by Qs).  The reason is that some can stall, some
> can finish quickly, and so on.  To maintain a constantly in use
> upstream we need at least a few, 5 would be good.  I used to die doing
> 220+ transmitting, this was killing me.  Now I do 0, we've come back
> to far.  Time to move back into the middle a little.  If you don't
> like magic like 5, try, as long as messageSendTime is <600ms, allow
> more in, as it increases beyond, limit things down.  If you don't like
> that, maybe limit the messageSendQueueSize to be 8-10, 47 is too much,
> 0.002 is too small.

I also think we need to limit the number of transmitting connections such
that we always use the full bandwidth.  Toad does not like this idea at all.

> And, one last thing, the transfer rate did not shoot up when my node
> was unloaded.  I did expect that because I only had 1 transmitting,
> and no Q load, that the rate would be fairly high, but no, 47.6 on the
> per minute page.  I limit at 8K/second.  We need to allow connections
> to open up.

Ed
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Reply via email to