Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-support] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems
On Saturday 05 Feb 2011 19:26:46 Juiceman wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Juiceman juicema...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Juiceman juicema...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org 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. 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. Errors in my log (build 1344) Also nodestats have been horrible on my seednode for last week or two. I am noticing node ping times in the 1500 - 3500 ms range. Mostly during daytime hours here (GMT -5). Not sure if ATT Uverse has quietly started throttling p2p (they say they don't), or if it is an attack or bug. Seeding for 206 is typical and didn't kill my node in the past. Let me know what logger settings to set and I can send you my logs if you want. Peer statistics * Connected: 15 * Backed off: 3 * Too old: 67 * Disconnected: 13 * Never connected: 5 * Clock Problem: 1 * Seeding for: 206 * Max peers: 36 * Max strangers: 36 Bandwidth * Input Rate: 48.2 KiB/s (of 1.0 MiB/s) * Output Rate: 31.6 KiB/s (of 105 KiB/s) * Session Total Input: 49.2 MiB (43.7 KiB/s average) * Session Total Output: 35.7 MiB (31.7 KiB/s average) * Payload Output: 214 KiB (190 B/sec)(0%) Node status overview * bwlimitDelayTime: 2947ms * bwlimitDelayTimeBulk: 2893ms * bwlimitDelayTimeRT: 9078ms * nodeAveragePingTime: 2315ms * darknetSizeEstimateSession: 0 nodes * opennetSizeEstimateSession: 833 nodes * nodeUptimeSession: 26m34s * nodeUptimeTotal: 8w2d * routingMissDistanceLocal: 0.0650 * routingMissDistanceRemote: 0.0141 * routingMissDistanceOverall: 0.0261 * backedOffPercent: 22.3% * pInstantReject: 95.8% * unclaimedFIFOSize: 2663 * RAMBucketPoolSize: 12.8 MiB / 150 MiB * uptimeAverage: 99.3% Ping times that high mean your node won't accept any requests at all, although it might accept some announcements. Usually this is caused by network or CPU problems. When I've run my seednode lately it hasn't had high ping times, nor have any of my other nodes. The NPE is fixed btw. 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] [freenet-support] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote: On Saturday 05 Feb 2011 19:26:46 Juiceman wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Juiceman juicema...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Juiceman juicema...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org 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. 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. Errors in my log (build 1344) Also nodestats have been horrible on my seednode for last week or two. I am noticing node ping times in the 1500 - 3500 ms range. Mostly during daytime hours here (GMT -5). Not sure if ATT Uverse has quietly started throttling p2p (they say they don't), or if it is an attack or bug. Seeding for 206 is typical and didn't kill my node in the past. Let me know what logger settings to set and I can send you my logs if you want. Peer statistics * Connected: 15 * Backed off: 3 * Too old: 67 * Disconnected: 13 * Never connected: 5 * Clock Problem: 1 * Seeding for: 206 * Max peers: 36 * Max strangers: 36 Bandwidth * Input Rate: 48.2 KiB/s (of 1.0 MiB/s) * Output Rate: 31.6 KiB/s (of 105 KiB/s) * Session Total Input: 49.2 MiB (43.7 KiB/s average) * Session Total Output: 35.7 MiB (31.7 KiB/s average) * Payload Output: 214 KiB (190 B/sec)(0%) Node status overview * bwlimitDelayTime: 2947ms * bwlimitDelayTimeBulk: 2893ms * bwlimitDelayTimeRT: 9078ms * nodeAveragePingTime: 2315ms * darknetSizeEstimateSession: 0 nodes * opennetSizeEstimateSession: 833 nodes * nodeUptimeSession: 26m34s * nodeUptimeTotal: 8w2d * routingMissDistanceLocal: 0.0650 * routingMissDistanceRemote: 0.0141 * routingMissDistanceOverall: 0.0261 * backedOffPercent: 22.3% * pInstantReject: 95.8% * unclaimedFIFOSize: 2663 * RAMBucketPoolSize: 12.8 MiB / 150 MiB * uptimeAverage: 99.3% Ping times that high mean your node won't accept any requests at all, although it might accept some announcements. Usually this is caused by network or CPU problems. When I've run my seednode lately it hasn't had high ping times, nor have any of my other nodes. The NPE is fixed btw. I have a tech coming out to diagnose my DSL issues, but the last several builds have improved my ping times. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-support] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org 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. 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. Errors in my log (build 1344) Feb 05, 2011 19:02:26:530 (freenet.node.FNPPacketMangler, UdpSocketHandler for port 8476(1), ERROR): Last resort match anon-auth against all anon setup peernodes succeeded - this should not happen! (It can happen if they change address) Feb 05, 2011 19:02:26:968 (freenet.node.FNPPacketMangler, UdpSocketHandler for port 8476(1), ERROR): Last resort match anon-auth against all anon setup peernodes succeeded - this should not happen! (It can happen if they change address) Feb 05, 2011 19:02:28:030 (freenet.io.comm.MessageCore, UdpSocketHandler for port 8476(1), ERROR): Dispatcher threw java.lang.NullPointerException java.lang.NullPointerException at freenet.node.PeerNode.getPeerNodeStatus(PeerNode.java:3496) at freenet.node.PeerNode.setPeerNodeStatus(PeerNode.java:3550) at freenet.node.PeerNode.setPeerNodeStatus(PeerNode.java:3538) at freenet.node.PeerNode.updateLocation(PeerNode.java:1740) at freenet.node.NodeDispatcher.handleMessage(NodeDispatcher.java:193) at freenet.io.comm.MessageCore.checkFilters(MessageCore.java:233) at freenet.node.PeerNode.handleMessage(PeerNode.java:4954) at freenet.node.PeerNode$MyDecodingMessageGroup.complete(PeerNode.java:5055) at freenet.node.NewPacketFormat.handleReceivedPacket(NewPacketFormat.java:127) at freenet.node.PeerNode.handleReceivedPacket(PeerNode.java:4926) at freenet.io.comm.IncomingPacketFilterImpl.process(IncomingPacketFilterImpl.java:62) at freenet.io.comm.UdpSocketHandler.realRun(UdpSocketHandler.java:171) at freenet.io.comm.UdpSocketHandler.runLoop(UdpSocketHandler.java:137) at freenet.io.comm.UdpSocketHandler.run(UdpSocketHandler.java:94) at freenet.support.PooledExecutor$MyThread.realRun(PooledExecutor.java:227) at freenet.support.io.NativeThread.run(NativeThread.java:130) Feb 05, 2011 19:02:28:343 (freenet.node.FNPPacketMangler, UdpSocketHandler for port 8476(1), ERROR): Last resort match anon-auth against all anon setup peernodes succeeded - this should not happen! (It can happen if they change address) Feb 05, 2011 19:02:28:546 (freenet.node.FNPPacketMangler, UdpSocketHandler for port 8476(1), ERROR): Unknown neg type: 5 Feb 05, 2011 19:02:28:640 (freenet.node.FNPPacketMangler, UdpSocketHandler for port 8476(1), ERROR): Last resort match anon-auth against all anon setup peernodes succeeded - this should not happen! (It can happen if they change address) Feb 05, 2011 19:02:28:718 (freenet.node.FNPPacketMangler, UdpSocketHandler for port 8476(1), ERROR): Last resort match anon-auth against all anon setup peernodes succeeded - this should not happen! (It can happen if they change address) Feb 05, 2011 19:02:32:952 (freenet.io.xfer.PacketThrottle, Announcement sender for -6664479198334775233(57), ERROR): Unable to send throttled message, waited 3ms Feb 05, 2011 19:02:32:952 (freenet.io.xfer.BulkTransmitter, Announcement sender for -6664479198334775233(57), ERROR): Failed to send bulk packet 2 for BulkTransmitter:3594291877902462283:freenet.node.SeedClientPeerNode@332c6e37@198.166.24.103:17593@774cd7d61d346340f5a2f2802d53ef2950bccd9519a7bf3e3245a91736f8f43a RTT is 0s Feb 05, 2011 19:02:42:374
Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-support] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Juiceman juicema...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org 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. 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. Errors in my log (build 1344) Also nodestats have been horrible on my seednode for last week or two. I am noticing node ping times in the 1500 - 3500 ms range. Mostly during daytime hours here (GMT -5). Not sure if ATT Uverse has quietly started throttling p2p (they say they don't), or if it is an attack or bug. Seeding for 206 is typical and didn't kill my node in the past. Let me know what logger settings to set and I can send you my logs if you want. Peer statistics * Connected: 15 * Backed off: 3 * Too old: 67 * Disconnected: 13 * Never connected: 5 * Clock Problem: 1 * Seeding for: 206 * Max peers: 36 * Max strangers: 36 Bandwidth * Input Rate: 48.2 KiB/s (of 1.0 MiB/s) * Output Rate: 31.6 KiB/s (of 105 KiB/s) * Session Total Input: 49.2 MiB (43.7 KiB/s average) * Session Total Output: 35.7 MiB (31.7 KiB/s average) * Payload Output: 214 KiB (190 B/sec)(0%) ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-support] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Juiceman juicema...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Juiceman juicema...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org 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. 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. Errors in my log (build 1344) Also nodestats have been horrible on my seednode for last week or two. I am noticing node ping times in the 1500 - 3500 ms range. Mostly during daytime hours here (GMT -5). Not sure if ATT Uverse has quietly started throttling p2p (they say they don't), or if it is an attack or bug. Seeding for 206 is typical and didn't kill my node in the past. Let me know what logger settings to set and I can send you my logs if you want. Peer statistics * Connected: 15 * Backed off: 3 * Too old: 67 * Disconnected: 13 * Never connected: 5 * Clock Problem: 1 * Seeding for: 206 * Max peers: 36 * Max strangers: 36 Bandwidth * Input Rate: 48.2 KiB/s (of 1.0 MiB/s) * Output Rate: 31.6 KiB/s (of 105 KiB/s) * Session Total Input: 49.2 MiB (43.7 KiB/s average) * Session Total Output: 35.7 MiB (31.7 KiB/s average) * Payload Output: 214 KiB (190 B/sec)(0%) Node status overview * bwlimitDelayTime: 2947ms * bwlimitDelayTimeBulk: 2893ms * bwlimitDelayTimeRT: 9078ms * nodeAveragePingTime: 2315ms * darknetSizeEstimateSession: 0 nodes * opennetSizeEstimateSession: 833 nodes * nodeUptimeSession: 26m34s * nodeUptimeTotal: 8w2d * routingMissDistanceLocal: 0.0650 * routingMissDistanceRemote: 0.0141 * routingMissDistanceOverall: 0.0261 * backedOffPercent: 22.3% * pInstantReject: 95.8% * unclaimedFIFOSize: 2663 * RAMBucketPoolSize: 12.8 MiB / 150 MiB * uptimeAverage: 99.3% ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-support] Call for seednodes and explanation of current problems
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Juiceman juicema...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org 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. 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. (More) Errors in my log (build 1344) Feb 05, 2011 19:09:21:468 (freenet.io.xfer.BlockReceiver$3$1, noname(576), ERROR): Other side did not acknowlege transfer failure on freenet.io.xfer.BlockReceiver@12e7d4e:5083681545186716019:freenet.node.OpennetPeerNode@42831fde@119.237.181.5:17829@6970775c69d506563ac265b939f5d0884a99ba19f5b8483841de847a36e0709c Feb 05, 2011 19:09:21:468 (freenet.node.RequestSender$7, noname(576), ERROR): Fatal timeout receiving requested block on freenet.node.RequestSender$7@124baa6 from freenet.node.OpennetPeerNode@42831fde@119.237.181.5:17829@6970775c69d506563ac265b939f5d0884a99ba19f5b8483841de847a36e0709c@d9b967 Feb 05, 2011 19:09:22:999 (freenet.io.comm.MessageCore, UdpSocketHandler for port 8476(1), ERROR): Dispatcher threw java.lang.NullPointerException java.lang.NullPointerException at freenet.node.PeerNode.getPeerNodeStatus(PeerNode.java:3496) at freenet.node.PeerNode.setPeerNodeStatus(PeerNode.java:3550) at freenet.node.PeerNode.setPeerNodeStatus(PeerNode.java:3538) at freenet.node.PeerNode.updateLocation(PeerNode.java:1740) at freenet.node.NodeDispatcher.handleMessage(NodeDispatcher.java:193) at freenet.io.comm.MessageCore.checkFilters(MessageCore.java:233) at freenet.node.PeerNode.handleMessage(PeerNode.java:4954) at freenet.node.PeerNode$MyDecodingMessageGroup.complete(PeerNode.java:5055) at freenet.node.NewPacketFormat.handleReceivedPacket(NewPacketFormat.java:127) at freenet.node.PeerNode.handleReceivedPacket(PeerNode.java:4926) at freenet.io.comm.IncomingPacketFilterImpl.process(IncomingPacketFilterImpl.java:62) at freenet.io.comm.UdpSocketHandler.realRun(UdpSocketHandler.java:171) at freenet.io.comm.UdpSocketHandler.runLoop(UdpSocketHandler.java:137) at freenet.io.comm.UdpSocketHandler.run(UdpSocketHandler.java:94) at freenet.support.PooledExecutor$MyThread.realRun(PooledExecutor.java:227) at freenet.support.io.NativeThread.run(NativeThread.java:130) Feb 05, 2011 19:09:23:593 (freenet.node.FNPPacketMangler, UdpSocketHandler for port 8476(1), ERROR): Unknown neg type: 5 Feb 05, 2011 19:09:30:468 (freenet.node.PeerManager, UdpSocketHandler for port 8476(1), ERROR): removePeerNodeStatus(): identity 'ok4pyMM2Pddv~g1GOwHyZMMxBFycY0nPNI6irEd1WTA for freenet.node.OpennetPeerNode@b72265c8@77.58.193.66:55131@a24e29c8c3363dd76ffa0d463b01f264c331045c9c6349cf348ea2ac47755930' not in peerNodeStatuses with status 'BACKED OFF' java.lang.Exception: debug at freenet.node.PeerManager.removePeerNodeStatus(PeerManager.java:1585) at freenet.node.PeerManager.removePeerNodeStatus(PeerManager.java:1573) at freenet.node.PeerNode.setPeerNodeStatus(PeerNode.java:3553) at freenet.node.PeerNode.setPeerNodeStatus(PeerNode.java:3538) at freenet.node.PeerNode.updateLocation(PeerNode.java:1740) at freenet.node.NodeDispatcher.handleMessage(NodeDispatcher.java:193) at freenet.io.comm.MessageCore.checkFilters(MessageCore.java:233) at freenet.node.PeerNode.handleMessage(PeerNode.java:4954) at
