[freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems

[Bill Ritchie]

I'm hoping that this might shed a bit more light on why we are having issues 
bootstrapping nodes.  
I've had to temporarily disable my seed node.  I am the senor network engineer 
for a small co-location facility.   

Over the weekend I started to get reports that the bandwidth throughput for was 
dropping off.  After I shutdown the seed node things went back to normal.  We 
have several customers that where effected, with really long load times.  I 
have over 20 Mbits allocated to Freenet, and it's running on its own server.   
Prior to shutting down the node I cut and pasted some of the stuff from the 
stats page.  Also I have the wrapper log.  I also have a cut and paste of the 
nat table on main router.  I don't think that this was an attack nor do I think 
that it was a bandwidth issue.   However I DO think that it was overflowing the 
Nat table.  I am taking steps to resolve this by giving the Freenet seed node a 
public ip and skipping nat.   I will resend the node ref later today after I 
take care of this.

However while this will take care of my problem and make the seed node not 
overload nat, I don't think that we have fixed the real issue with 
bootstrapping new nodes.  It didn't become an issue until sometime 
Thursday/Friday.  I would like to dig into this issue some more, but I am 
unable to do so for the next few days. 



> -Original Message-
> From: devl-bounces at freenetproject.org [mailto:devl-
> bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 1:40 PM
> To: devl at freenetproject.org; support at freenetproject.org
> Subject: [freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current
> problems
> 
> We need more seednodes. I will explain the broader situation below. If
> you can run a seednode - which means you need a forwarded port, a
> reasonably static IP address (or dyndns name), and a reasonable amount
> of bandwidth (especially upstream), and a reasonably stable node,
> please send me your opennet noderef (from the strangers page in
> advanced mode), and enable "Be a seednode" in the advanced config.
> Thanks.
> 
> Details:
> 
> One of the problems Freenet has at the moment is that bootstrapping a
> new node can take an awfully long time - 20 minutes or more sometimes.
> It is not clear why; we seem to either get rejected by seednodes (most
> of the time), or they return nothing, maybe a few "not wanted" notices,
> or they return lots of noderefs and we manage to announce.
> 
> This might be due to bugs. 1343 fixed a bug that apparently badly
> affected some seednodes. However it appears most seednodes have
> upgraded now.
> 
> There doesn't seem to be a problem with losing connections - backoff
> yes but once a node is connected it seems to mostly stay connected.
> 
> The most likely answer seems to be that we just don't have enough
> seednodes to cope with the load.
> 
> It is also possible that this is due to an attack. It did come on
> relatively suddenly a few weeks ago (it was bad before but it got much
> worse), and it seems to have got significantly worse in the last week.
> It is not clear how we would identify an attack if that was the
> problem; there are no obvious signs so far.
> 
> It is also possible it is a client-side bug. Testing of the master
> branch would be useful, it has some small changes.

Re: [freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems

[Bill Ritchie]

I'm hoping that this might shed a bit more light on why we are having issues 
bootstrapping nodes.  
I've had to temporarily disable my seed node.  I am the senor network engineer 
for a small co-location facility.   

Over the weekend I started to get reports that the bandwidth throughput for was 
dropping off.  After I shutdown the seed node things went back to normal.  We 
have several customers that where effected, with really long load times.  I 
have over 20 Mbits allocated to Freenet, and it's running on its own server.   
Prior to shutting down the node I cut and pasted some of the stuff from the 
stats page.  Also I have the wrapper log.  I also have a cut and paste of the 
nat table on main router.  I don't think that this was an attack nor do I think 
that it was a bandwidth issue.   However I DO think that it was overflowing the 
Nat table.  I am taking steps to resolve this by giving the Freenet seed node a 
public ip and skipping nat.   I will resend the node ref later today after I 
take care of this.

However while this will take care of my problem and make the seed node not 
overload nat, I don't think that we have fixed the real issue with 
bootstrapping new nodes.  It didn't become an issue until sometime 
Thursday/Friday.  I would like to dig into this issue some more, but I am 
unable to do so for the next few days. 
 


 -Original Message-
 From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org [mailto:devl-
 boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland
 Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 1:40 PM
 To: devl@freenetproject.org; supp...@freenetproject.org
 Subject: [freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current
 problems
 
 We need more seednodes. I will explain the broader situation below. If
 you can run a seednode - which means you need a forwarded port, a
 reasonably static IP address (or dyndns name), and a reasonable amount
 of bandwidth (especially upstream), and a reasonably stable node,
 please send me your opennet noderef (from the strangers page in
 advanced mode), and enable Be a seednode in the advanced config.
 Thanks.
 
 Details:
 
 One of the problems Freenet has at the moment is that bootstrapping a
 new node can take an awfully long time - 20 minutes or more sometimes.
 It is not clear why; we seem to either get rejected by seednodes (most
 of the time), or they return nothing, maybe a few not wanted notices,
 or they return lots of noderefs and we manage to announce.
 
 This might be due to bugs. 1343 fixed a bug that apparently badly
 affected some seednodes. However it appears most seednodes have
 upgraded now.
 
 There doesn't seem to be a problem with losing connections - backoff
 yes but once a node is connected it seems to mostly stay connected.
 
 The most likely answer seems to be that we just don't have enough
 seednodes to cope with the load.
 
 It is also possible that this is due to an attack. It did come on
 relatively suddenly a few weeks ago (it was bad before but it got much
 worse), and it seems to have got significantly worse in the last week.
 It is not clear how we would identify an attack if that was the
 problem; there are no obvious signs so far.
 
 It is also possible it is a client-side bug. Testing of the master
 branch would be useful, it has some small changes.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems

[artur]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Am 12.02.2011 01:43, schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> On Friday 11 Feb 2011 21:39:34 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> On Saturday 05 February 2011 18:39:49 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>> We need more seednodes. I will explain the broader situation below. If you
>>> can run a seednode - which means you need a forwarded port, a reasonably
>>> static IP address (or dyndns name), and a reasonable amount of bandwidth
>>> (especially upstream), and a reasonably stable node, please send me your
>>> opennet noderef (from the strangers page in advanced mode), and enable "Be
>>> a seednode" in the advanced config. Thanks.
>>
>> How much upstream do I need exactly? 
>>
>> I can offer about 50kB/s (damn asymmetric DSL?), dyndns is no problem.
> 
> That's what I used to use when I was a seednode. It's a bit painful but it 
> works.

My seednode is running with 64kB/s,.. so not much more. And it is not
always using up its bandwidth.

So I would say it should be sufficient.

artur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNVkVFAAoJEMCbH/uYbXaWzdoIAK/Ht2Pl1IqHeeA4KuH8jxMy
101YmTGJarlivGGe6P5uff2dW6tLEUXzVbqWPplWYNgCywnkjrFH96rPlr3UIm8C
ODwzZspx5+NFQ0VSqbnC3kLo+tOnfJhXfvutEug+VtPNp5PJrdRmvbe47q4JtJhc
uA5JqdgTtOlHo1/GG6QikYudl1cmnOFFGW/Xm2NYTjcE3tzGkD5AlAnapWCV9xlK
f63pYBW/hx5aFf9AJE26uyOc/CiRIhF1mk09WzSW8z3BP9w8GVyr8V9PoeO+P6O5
AAKPTEKUmzJaP+i/x+XcoqFgGAT+1Vyur4MFlxkUk/UMDHYKBPXS3OQ551bEe98=
=wygc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 11 Feb 2011 21:39:34 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Saturday 05 February 2011 18:39:49 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > We need more seednodes. I will explain the broader situation below. If you
> > can run a seednode - which means you need a forwarded port, a reasonably
> > static IP address (or dyndns name), and a reasonable amount of bandwidth
> > (especially upstream), and a reasonably stable node, please send me your
> > opennet noderef (from the strangers page in advanced mode), and enable "Be
> > a seednode" in the advanced config. Thanks.
> 
> How much upstream do I need exactly? 
> 
> I can offer about 50kB/s (damn asymmetric DSL?), dyndns is no problem.

That's what I used to use when I was a seednode. It's a bit painful but it 
works.
> 
> Does that suffice?
> 
> Best wishes, 
> Arne
> --
> Ein W?rfel System - einfach saubere Regeln: 
> 
> - http://1w6.org
> 
> 
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

Re: [freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems

[artur]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Am 12.02.2011 01:43, schrieb Matthew Toseland:
 On Friday 11 Feb 2011 21:39:34 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
 On Saturday 05 February 2011 18:39:49 Matthew Toseland wrote:
 We need more seednodes. I will explain the broader situation below. If you
 can run a seednode - which means you need a forwarded port, a reasonably
 static IP address (or dyndns name), and a reasonable amount of bandwidth
 (especially upstream), and a reasonably stable node, please send me your
 opennet noderef (from the strangers page in advanced mode), and enable Be
 a seednode in the advanced config. Thanks.

 How much upstream do I need exactly? 

 I can offer about 50kB/s (damn asymmetric DSL…), dyndns is no problem.
 
 That's what I used to use when I was a seednode. It's a bit painful but it 
 works.

My seednode is running with 64kB/s,.. so not much more. And it is not
always using up its bandwidth.

So I would say it should be sufficient.

artur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNVkVFAAoJEMCbH/uYbXaWzdoIAK/Ht2Pl1IqHeeA4KuH8jxMy
101YmTGJarlivGGe6P5uff2dW6tLEUXzVbqWPplWYNgCywnkjrFH96rPlr3UIm8C
ODwzZspx5+NFQ0VSqbnC3kLo+tOnfJhXfvutEug+VtPNp5PJrdRmvbe47q4JtJhc
uA5JqdgTtOlHo1/GG6QikYudl1cmnOFFGW/Xm2NYTjcE3tzGkD5AlAnapWCV9xlK
f63pYBW/hx5aFf9AJE26uyOc/CiRIhF1mk09WzSW8z3BP9w8GVyr8V9PoeO+P6O5
AAKPTEKUmzJaP+i/x+XcoqFgGAT+1Vyur4MFlxkUk/UMDHYKBPXS3OQ551bEe98=
=wygc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Saturday 05 February 2011 18:39:49 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> We need more seednodes. I will explain the broader situation below. If you
> can run a seednode - which means you need a forwarded port, a reasonably
> static IP address (or dyndns name), and a reasonable amount of bandwidth
> (especially upstream), and a reasonably stable node, please send me your
> opennet noderef (from the strangers page in advanced mode), and enable "Be
> a seednode" in the advanced config. Thanks.

How much upstream do I need exactly? 

I can offer about 50kB/s (damn asymmetric DSL?), dyndns is no problem.

Does that suffice?

Best wishes, 
Arne
--
Ein W?rfel System - einfach saubere Regeln: 

- http://1w6.org

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

Re: [freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

On Saturday 05 February 2011 18:39:49 Matthew Toseland wrote:
 We need more seednodes. I will explain the broader situation below. If you
 can run a seednode - which means you need a forwarded port, a reasonably
 static IP address (or dyndns name), and a reasonable amount of bandwidth
 (especially upstream), and a reasonably stable node, please send me your
 opennet noderef (from the strangers page in advanced mode), and enable Be
 a seednode in the advanced config. Thanks.

How much upstream do I need exactly?

I can offer about 50kB/s (damn asymmetric DSL…), dyndns is no problem.

Does that suffice?

Best wishes,
Arne
--
Ein Würfel System - einfach saubere Regeln:

- http://1w6.org



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 11 Feb 2011 21:39:34 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
 On Saturday 05 February 2011 18:39:49 Matthew Toseland wrote:
  We need more seednodes. I will explain the broader situation below. If you
  can run a seednode - which means you need a forwarded port, a reasonably
  static IP address (or dyndns name), and a reasonable amount of bandwidth
  (especially upstream), and a reasonably stable node, please send me your
  opennet noderef (from the strangers page in advanced mode), and enable Be
  a seednode in the advanced config. Thanks.
 
 How much upstream do I need exactly? 
 
 I can offer about 50kB/s (damn asymmetric DSL…), dyndns is no problem.

That's what I used to use when I was a seednode. It's a bit painful but it 
works.
 
 Does that suffice?
 
 Best wishes, 
 Arne
 --
 Ein Würfel System - einfach saubere Regeln: 
 
 - http://1w6.org
 
 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems

[Matthew Toseland]

We need more seednodes. I will explain the broader situation below. If you can 
run a seednode - which means you need a forwarded port, a reasonably static IP 
address (or dyndns name), and a reasonable amount of bandwidth (especially 
upstream), and a reasonably stable node, please send me your opennet noderef 
(from the strangers page in advanced mode), and enable "Be a seednode" in the 
advanced config. Thanks.

Details:

One of the problems Freenet has at the moment is that bootstrapping a new node 
can take an awfully long time - 20 minutes or more sometimes. It is not clear 
why; we seem to either get rejected by seednodes (most of the time), or they 
return nothing, maybe a few "not wanted" notices, or they return lots of 
noderefs and we manage to announce.

This might be due to bugs. 1343 fixed a bug that apparently badly affected some 
seednodes. However it appears most seednodes have upgraded now.

There doesn't seem to be a problem with losing connections - backoff yes but 
once a node is connected it seems to mostly stay connected.

The most likely answer seems to be that we just don't have enough seednodes to 
cope with the load.

It is also possible that this is due to an attack. It did come on relatively 
suddenly a few weeks ago (it was bad before but it got much worse), and it 
seems to have got significantly worse in the last week. It is not clear how we 
would identify an attack if that was the problem; there are no obvious signs so 
far.

It is also possible it is a client-side bug. Testing of the master branch would 
be useful, it has some small changes.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems

[Matthew Toseland]

We need more seednodes. I will explain the broader situation below. If you can 
run a seednode - which means you need a forwarded port, a reasonably static IP 
address (or dyndns name), and a reasonable amount of bandwidth (especially 
upstream), and a reasonably stable node, please send me your opennet noderef 
(from the strangers page in advanced mode), and enable Be a seednode in the 
advanced config. Thanks.

Details:

One of the problems Freenet has at the moment is that bootstrapping a new node 
can take an awfully long time - 20 minutes or more sometimes. It is not clear 
why; we seem to either get rejected by seednodes (most of the time), or they 
return nothing, maybe a few not wanted notices, or they return lots of 
noderefs and we manage to announce.

This might be due to bugs. 1343 fixed a bug that apparently badly affected some 
seednodes. However it appears most seednodes have upgraded now.

There doesn't seem to be a problem with losing connections - backoff yes but 
once a node is connected it seems to mostly stay connected.

The most likely answer seems to be that we just don't have enough seednodes to 
cope with the load.

It is also possible that this is due to an attack. It did come on relatively 
suddenly a few weeks ago (it was bad before but it got much worse), and it 
seems to have got significantly worse in the last week. It is not clear how we 
would identify an attack if that was the problem; there are no obvious signs so 
far.

It is also possible it is a client-side bug. Testing of the master branch would 
be useful, it has some small changes.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl