On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 04:50:11AM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hypothetical: > Routing works, so we have a 20% success ratio. > The average filesize is 200kB (this is about right on the current > network, check your datastore - but maybe we need to gather more > accurate stats on it). > We have a 256kbps uplink i.e. 32kB/sec, of which we can use all (this is > optimistic). > We get a mere 10kqph incoming, and accept all of it. > > I will now demonstrate that this is impossible: > 10kqph * 0.2 = 2kqph. > 2000 * 200kB = 409,600,000 bytes > 409,600,000 bytes / 3600 seconds = 113,777 bytes per second, for > trailers alone, assuming no connection and search overhead. > > So bandwidth is indeed the limiting factor, and we need to reject > queries based on bandwidth usage. But I fear that routing may not work > at all in this case. > > Ideas? > ----------------------- > Yeah, I told you so. "We are not suffering from load ballencing problems so much as > load problems."
Not necessarily. Look at the searchFailedCount. > > Here's the problem, this means the avearge node owner is asking for 10000 * .2 peces > of data per hour averaging 200kb each. 10000 * .2 * 200 / 1024 ~= 391MB/hr. Now > given that people are alseep 1/3rd of the time, at least half of the rest of the > time not useing freenet, and at least 1/4th of all nodes don't make local requests. > That means that when someone is useing freenet they actualy generate 4 times that > ammount or 1562.5 MB/h in UNIQUE requests. That doesn't count the fact that they > have to retry an average of 5 times. Most of those queries are in fact RETRIES at the client level. Since we use the HTL from QRs now, it may or may not be a load balancing problem - certainly we could improve routing by reducing the searchFailedCount, but perhaps it isn't actually generating any new load in itself. > > So the question is why on earth is freenet letting them initate requests for 7812.5 > MB of data when even with a saturated connection that is downloading only their > stuff, they could only get 32 * 3600 / 1024 = 112.5 MB/h? Because the requests are all retries. We have a shitload of load because routing fails to find the documents. We fail to find the documents because we have a shitload of load! > > Don't let them do it. If that means we through out Frost fine. It would be best if > we ultimatly implimented some sort of trust biased routing. I am working on writing > some psudo code for how it could be done. I'll post it by the end of the week. It is impossible to control client level usage of Freenet. > > PS: Toad, I know you don't think TUKs will solve the Frost problem, but I think it > can, but this is probably becuse I think TUKs should be done differntly than it says > in CVS. Please enlighten me. However the main reason I don't think TUKs will solve the Frost problem is a trust issue - on a public or semi-public board, just insert a TUK with a really high index number. -- 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
