Each of these packets is, I assume, a single message. I think it
would be useful to see a break-down showing number of messages, and
total message size (ie. total bw used) on a per-message type basis.
Ian.
On 6 Apr 2006, at 14:30, Matthew Toseland wrote:
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+: 1311
This 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.
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
