On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:48:28AM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > 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.
What do you think we are doing now? What is he complaining about? We're just not using any hideous exploitable alchemy such as limiting the NUMBER of transmitting connections. > > > 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 -- 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
