On Friday 27 February 2009 15:58:19 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > > - Possibly increase the number of nodes faster nodes can connect to. > [...] > > TOP FIVE USERVOICE SUGGESTIONS: > > 1. Release the 20 nodes barrier. > > This is marked as "under review", it may happen in 0.9. It requires some > > alchemy/tweaking. :| > > Alternately (or in addition), you could decrease the node limit on > slow nodes. I've been running with a lower bandwidth limit lately > (15KiB/s out), and I see slightly improved payload fraction with a 15 > node limit than 20 -- about 71-72%, vs about 68% with 20KiB/s. > Bandwidth limiting still hits its target effectively (currently > showing 14.3KiB/s average on 18h uptime). Subjectively, I can't see a > difference running 20 vs 15 connections.
Well, payload is not the only problem here. > > As I understand it, the problem is that per-connection speed is > limited by the slowest connection (approximately). If slow nodes had > fewer connections, those connections would be faster, just as if the > faster node had more connections. So from a bandwidth usage > standpoint, the two approaches should be similar. IIRC I cut it to 10 connections for slow nodes for a while and ended up reverting it. But this may have been the wrong decision ... it's an alchemical parameter, we need time to tune it, so whether we should change it just before releasing 0.8 beta is not clear. > > I do see two advantages to not increasing the connection limit, > though. With a small network of only a few thousand nodes, the > diameter of the network is very small. Eventually, when Freenet has a > large network, routing needs to work over a larger diameter. If you > increase the connection limit now, you'll learn less about how Freenet > scales in practice in the near future. On the other hand if performance sucks now, we may not have a future! > > Since reducing the connection limit on low bw nodes seems to increase > the payload fraction, that means their bw is being used more > efficiently. My recollection is that reducing the connection limit > didn't change payload fraction at higher bw limits. Efficiency > improvements are nice even if they're small and only on some of the > network. > > I think it would be inappropriate to reduce the connection limit > without further testing. Has anyone else with a low bw limit tried > this? Does it cause any problems? If it doesn't cause any problems, > I would suggest making the change be a small one initially. Rather > than a flat 20 connections, something like 1 connection per 2KiB/s of > outbound bandwidth, with a minimum of 15 and a max of 20. I'll > perform some testing with 15 connections, 30KiB/s limit and report > back on that. Ok. > > Evan Daniel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090302/085941c9/attachment.pgp>
