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 - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
