[freenet-support] Freenet and Tor

2008-05-05 Thread Jim Cook 
Tor's FAQ notes ...

"Tor and Freenet work on different levels: Tor is about transport, 
and Freenet is about storage/retrieval. So it would make perfect 
sense (assuming we become happy with the scalability and 
decentralization properties) to use Tor to get anonymous transport 
between Freenet nodes."

That sounds cool.  But is it feasible, given that Freenet uses UDP 
and Tor uses TCP?  I've read on Freenet's website the possible ways 
to anonymize internode connections, and saw no mention of Tor.

=
Jim Cook

[freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-05-05 Thread Jim Cook 
At 01:50 PM 5/5/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:



> > After checking the logs, it's clear what's going on.  Freenet runs
> > just fine after I log off; indeed, it seems to be happier.  However,
> > when I log on, various Freenet processes start timing out, and the
> > node drops all connections after ca. 10 min.  This is a fairly old
> > machine with a 2.8 GHz Pentium D and 2 Gb RAM, and it's pretty maxed
> > out during logon.  It loads three apps (Firefox, Eudora and
> > UltraEdit) and runs a few system and malware scans, and Freenet drops
> > connections before the system frees up.
>
>Eeek. We should seriously consider increasing Freenet's base priority from
>BELOW_NORMAL to NORMAL. We use thread priorities everywhere, only threads
>which are critical and don't use much CPU are high priority, so 95% of the
>time this shouldn't impact on system performance...
>
>See https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2337

I've increased its base priority to NORMAL.

> > Although Freenet reports that it's trying to connect, I find that it
> > hasn't after more than 2 hr.  But once I stop and restart in Win XP
> > services manager, it connects immediately.
>
>That's bad. It ought to recover. Does it try to reseed?

Yes, it keeps trying, but reports "java.net.SocketException: Protocol 
not allowed".

After stopping the node and restarting, it adds its first peer within 
two minutes, has five by four minutes, and rapidly connects to ca. 20.

> > Is that behavior normal?
>
>No, it may be a bug.

I wasn't keeping enough logs to span the last logoff/logon, but I saw 
the same behavior after the update to Build #1145.  Within a few 
hours after the update, the node dropped all connections, and 
wouldn't reconnect until I stopped and restarted.  I'll e-mail log 
excerpts off list.



=
Jim Cook

[freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-05-05 Thread Matthew Toseland 
On Sunday 04 May 2008 21:15, Jim Cook wrote:
> At 12:43 PM 5/3/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > > My node's been up continuously now for about three days, with ca. 20
> > > peers, 25.1 KiB/sec average input rate, 27.1 KiB/sec average output
> > > rate (of 50.0 KiB/sec) and 13.9 KiB/sec average payload output rate
> > > (51%).  Is that reasonable?
> >
> >With 20 connected/backed off peers? It's a bit low, mine's been a bit low
> >lately too though...
> 
> I've only provided the default 128M wrapper memory.  Could that be a 
> factor?  Are there other config settings that might be limiting throughput?

Perhaps. Mostly memory is used by the queue (and to a lesser extent the 
datastore database backend).
> 
> > > However, in order to achieve that, I've had to stay logged on Win
> > > NT.  If I log off while sleeping or away, which has been my practice,
> > > Freenet appears to keep running (based on network activity) for a
> > > while.  However, when I log on the next day, I find that the node
> > > isn't connected to any peers, and also that it won't connect until I
> > > stop and restart it.
> >
> >That is really bizarre. File a bug on https://bugs.freenetproject.org/ .
> >Include wrapper.log and any ERRORs in logs/ ...
> 
> After checking the logs, it's clear what's going on.  Freenet runs 
> just fine after I log off; indeed, it seems to be happier.  However, 
> when I log on, various Freenet processes start timing out, and the 
> node drops all connections after ca. 10 min.  This is a fairly old 
> machine with a 2.8 GHz Pentium D and 2 Gb RAM, and it's pretty maxed 
> out during logon.  It loads three apps (Firefox, Eudora and 
> UltraEdit) and runs a few system and malware scans, and Freenet drops 
> connections before the system frees up.

Eeek. We should seriously consider increasing Freenet's base priority from 
BELOW_NORMAL to NORMAL. We use thread priorities everywhere, only threads 
which are critical and don't use much CPU are high priority, so 95% of the 
time this shouldn't impact on system performance...

See https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2337
> 
> Although Freenet reports that it's trying to connect, I find that it 
> hasn't after more than 2 hr.  But once I stop and restart in Win XP 
> services manager, it connects immediately.

That's bad. It ought to recover. Does it try to reseed?
> 
> Is that behavior normal?

No, it may be a bug.
> 
> > > Freenet runs as user ".\freenet", and I get that y'all switched from
> > > running as LocalSystem to improve security
> ><https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=1231>.
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> > > Am I correct in
> > > guessing that ".\freenet" is linked to my user account, and so the
> > > Freenet service hangs after I log off?
> >
> >No, it's a separate user.
> >
> > > Could Freenet run safely as
> > > LocalService or NetworkService?
> >
> >No idea. Probably. Would it be better?
> 
> I have no clue.  On my Win XP system now, Freenet is the only service 
> running as a non-standard user.  Most services are running as 
> LocalSystem, and the rest are running as LocalService or 
> NetworkService.  I gather that LocalService and NetworkService have 
> restricted permissions, apparently more-or-less comparable to default 
> non-admin users.  But I've never needed to mess with that stuff, so I 
> don't know it.  And it seems to be OK as is, so I won't mess with it.

We could do that. I dunno if it would be better, the current way may be better 
although it's not what other apps do...

https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2336
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20080505/78f9ed49/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-support] Freenet and Tor

2008-05-05 Thread Jim Cook 
Tor's FAQ notes ...

"Tor and Freenet work on different levels: Tor is about transport, 
and Freenet is about storage/retrieval. So it would make perfect 
sense (assuming we become happy with the scalability and 
decentralization properties) to use Tor to get anonymous transport 
between Freenet nodes."

That sounds cool.  But is it feasible, given that Freenet uses UDP 
and Tor uses TCP?  I've read on Freenet's website the possible ways 
to anonymize internode connections, and saw no mention of Tor.

=
Jim Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  


___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-05-05 Thread Jim Cook 
At 01:50 PM 5/5/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:



> > After checking the logs, it's clear what's going on.  Freenet runs
> > just fine after I log off; indeed, it seems to be happier.  However,
> > when I log on, various Freenet processes start timing out, and the
> > node drops all connections after ca. 10 min.  This is a fairly old
> > machine with a 2.8 GHz Pentium D and 2 Gb RAM, and it's pretty maxed
> > out during logon.  It loads three apps (Firefox, Eudora and
> > UltraEdit) and runs a few system and malware scans, and Freenet drops
> > connections before the system frees up.
>
>Eeek. We should seriously consider increasing Freenet's base priority from
>BELOW_NORMAL to NORMAL. We use thread priorities everywhere, only threads
>which are critical and don't use much CPU are high priority, so 95% of the
>time this shouldn't impact on system performance...
>
>See https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2337

I've increased its base priority to NORMAL.

> > Although Freenet reports that it's trying to connect, I find that it
> > hasn't after more than 2 hr.  But once I stop and restart in Win XP
> > services manager, it connects immediately.
>
>That's bad. It ought to recover. Does it try to reseed?

Yes, it keeps trying, but reports "java.net.SocketException: Protocol 
not allowed".

After stopping the node and restarting, it adds its first peer within 
two minutes, has five by four minutes, and rapidly connects to ca. 20.

> > Is that behavior normal?
>
>No, it may be a bug.

I wasn't keeping enough logs to span the last logoff/logon, but I saw 
the same behavior after the update to Build #1145.  Within a few 
hours after the update, the node dropped all connections, and 
wouldn't reconnect until I stopped and restarted.  I'll e-mail log 
excerpts off list.



=
Jim Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-05-05 Thread Matthew Toseland 
On Sunday 04 May 2008 21:15, Jim Cook wrote:
> At 12:43 PM 5/3/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > > My node's been up continuously now for about three days, with ca. 20
> > > peers, 25.1 KiB/sec average input rate, 27.1 KiB/sec average output
> > > rate (of 50.0 KiB/sec) and 13.9 KiB/sec average payload output rate
> > > (51%).  Is that reasonable?
> >
> >With 20 connected/backed off peers? It's a bit low, mine's been a bit low
> >lately too though...
> 
> I've only provided the default 128M wrapper memory.  Could that be a 
> factor?  Are there other config settings that might be limiting throughput?

Perhaps. Mostly memory is used by the queue (and to a lesser extent the 
datastore database backend).
> 
> > > However, in order to achieve that, I've had to stay logged on Win
> > > NT.  If I log off while sleeping or away, which has been my practice,
> > > Freenet appears to keep running (based on network activity) for a
> > > while.  However, when I log on the next day, I find that the node
> > > isn't connected to any peers, and also that it won't connect until I
> > > stop and restart it.
> >
> >That is really bizarre. File a bug on https://bugs.freenetproject.org/ .
> >Include wrapper.log and any ERRORs in logs/ ...
> 
> After checking the logs, it's clear what's going on.  Freenet runs 
> just fine after I log off; indeed, it seems to be happier.  However, 
> when I log on, various Freenet processes start timing out, and the 
> node drops all connections after ca. 10 min.  This is a fairly old 
> machine with a 2.8 GHz Pentium D and 2 Gb RAM, and it's pretty maxed 
> out during logon.  It loads three apps (Firefox, Eudora and 
> UltraEdit) and runs a few system and malware scans, and Freenet drops 
> connections before the system frees up.

Eeek. We should seriously consider increasing Freenet's base priority from 
BELOW_NORMAL to NORMAL. We use thread priorities everywhere, only threads 
which are critical and don't use much CPU are high priority, so 95% of the 
time this shouldn't impact on system performance...

See https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2337
> 
> Although Freenet reports that it's trying to connect, I find that it 
> hasn't after more than 2 hr.  But once I stop and restart in Win XP 
> services manager, it connects immediately.

That's bad. It ought to recover. Does it try to reseed?
> 
> Is that behavior normal?

No, it may be a bug.
> 
> > > Freenet runs as user ".\freenet", and I get that y'all switched from
> > > running as LocalSystem to improve security
> >.
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> > > Am I correct in
> > > guessing that ".\freenet" is linked to my user account, and so the
> > > Freenet service hangs after I log off?
> >
> >No, it's a separate user.
> >
> > > Could Freenet run safely as
> > > LocalService or NetworkService?
> >
> >No idea. Probably. Would it be better?
> 
> I have no clue.  On my Win XP system now, Freenet is the only service 
> running as a non-standard user.  Most services are running as 
> LocalSystem, and the rest are running as LocalService or 
> NetworkService.  I gather that LocalService and NetworkService have 
> restricted permissions, apparently more-or-less comparable to default 
> non-admin users.  But I've never needed to mess with that stuff, so I 
> don't know it.  And it seems to be OK as is, so I won't mess with it.

We could do that. I dunno if it would be better, the current way may be better 
although it's not what other apps do...

https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2336


pgpa1VuHFdTAX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]