Packet Size (bytes) Count Packet Size (bytes) Count
1 to 75: 20248 751 to 825: 31
76 to 150: 239541 826 to 900: 28
151 to 225: 52956 901 to 975: 35
226 to 300: 7297 976 to 1050: 15
301 to 375: 547 1051 to 1125: 35
376 to 450: 385 1126 to 1200: 17657
451 to 525: 216 1201 to 1275: 129
526 to 600: 44 1276 to 1350: 97
601 to 675: 36 1351 to 1425: 139
676 to 750: 14 1426 to 1500+: 1311This is a log of packet size from my node over a period of 20 minutes. Actually of my 2 nodes, and probably a little TCP traffic too, but not much. Interesting features: 76-150-byte packets: 239451 * 100 = 23,945,100 1126-1200-byte packets: 17657 * 1150 = 20,305,550 Of the first group, 56 bytes per packet is overhead, so 13,409,256 bytes overhead out of that 23MB - something like a quarter of the whole. Obviously having many variable sized small packets is a bad thing for security, but surely it is a good thing for latency to be as low as possible by sending messages immediately? Another interesting point: If more than half of our bandwidth usage is on small packets, then our policy of only bandwidth limiting large packets cannot possibly work. -- 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://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
