[freenet-support] Bug in HTTP socket handler in 1208?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:58:48 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: > I have seen a couple times my node stall due to exceeding the thread > limit, caused by an absurd 333 "HTTP socket handlers" (86.7% of thread > usage). (My node's thread limit is 300). > > I believe this is caused by my browser (dillo) making too many > connections to fproxy. But, nevertheless, shouldn't these threads / > sockets die after a few minutes? They were all still alive after > more than 10mins of stalling my node, after which I had to restart to > get things flowing again. The problem still exists in 1209. (If my Dillo browser opens a page with hundreds of thumbnails and no limit to the number of connections made to the server/fproxy (It probably relies on http server response codes?), the number of HTTP socket handlers will sky-rocket above the limit, and stay there. Again, how long are these threads supposed to last for and why are they even allowed to exist (can't fproxy throttle the number of incoming connections?). There still do remain a couple "Pooled threads awaiting work", but the node effectively shuts down -- cpu drops to almost nothing, and all traffic seems to stop.
[freenet-support] Please answer a quick survey on Freenet
Matthew Toseland wrote: > > Additional useful info, if you don't mind parting with it: > Network, friends and physical security levels. > > Missed that one. here it goes: Protection against a stranger attacking you over the Internet: HIGH Protection if your friends attack your anonymity: LOW Protection if your computer is seized or stolen: NORMAL
[freenet-support] Please answer a quick survey on Freenet
> > What OS do you use for Freenet? > Windows server 2003 x86 & Windows 7 x64 > What is your current datastore size set to? > 20 Gb > What is your output bandwidth limit set to? > 100k > What actual bandwidth usage do you typically get? > 50k(I never get more than 50k, even if I add more bandwidth) > This will help us to make decisions about new performance features ... > > >
[freenet-support] Please answer a quick survey on Freenet
Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Friday 08 May 2009 09:11:01 Luke771 wrote: > >> Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >>> What OS do you use for Freenet? >>> >>> >> ubuntu 9.10 x86 desktop with sun java6 >> >>> What is your current datastore size set to? >>> >>> >> dedicated freenet disk 500gb, datastore set to 385GiB >> >>> What is your output bandwidth limit set to? >>> >>> >> 1MiB/s in >> 1MiB/s out >> >> >>> What actual bandwidth usage do you typically get? >>> >>> >> between 15 ~ 20 KiB/s in each direction >> > > If you have an 8M symmetric connection, then why do you get such a low > typical > transfer rate? > No idea. My connection is nominally 10Mbit/s symmetrical but actually somewhat less than that, I upload and download stuff (including large files) at over 600kB/s easily, sometimes over 900kB/s and occasionally over 1mB/s. I thought that BitTorrent may be limiting the bandwidth left for Freenet so I limited the BT bandwidth to 500kB/s symmetrical but Freenet bandwidth usage didnt benefit from that. There is the old and overtalked issue of my ISP not letting me get inbound connection unless I pay for it separately at the mobster price of ?4 a day but as you know, that shouldn't be a problem as long as my peers don't have the same limitation. I can connect to all of my peers so I assume that they can listen for inbound connections (but I did have to give up on trying to connect to someone a couple of times in the past because of the no-inbounds thing :/) So what could the problem be? Limited peers' bandwidth? At least some of them have extremely good connections, I guess I should get better bandwidth usage when those are connected, but I don't. All my peers are old, well established nodes, some of them are up 24/7 and some use both opennet/darknet Some info about other stuff, for comparison: Non-anonymous apps use at least half the 10Mbit/s without problems, and sometimes about 80,85% of it. i2p uses between 100 and 150 kB/s on average in each direction with max 500kB/s allowed, peaks up to 400+kB/s. I dont run a Tor server because of the "evil ISP" problem. >> Notes: >> - darknet only >> - usually 8 through 15 connected peers >> - node is up virtually 24/7 >> - little use of the node, mostly reading freesites and using frost >> >>> This will help us to make decisions about new performance features ... >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Support mailing list >>> Support at freenetproject.org >>> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support >>> Unsubscribe at >>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support >>> Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
[freenet-support] newbie question- Freenet doesn't restart with Mac restart
harry smythe wrote: > > Hi All, > > > Please excuse what might seem like a stupid question. I'm just > beginning to experiment with Freenet. I could not find this topic in > the archives. I have only some limited tech knowledge. > > > specs: > > * Freenet 0.7 Build #1209 rbuild01209-real > > * Freenet-ext Build #26 r23771 > > # JVM Version: 1.5.0_16-132 > > # OS Name: Mac OS X > > # OS Version: 10.4.11 > > # OS Architecture: i386 > > > I install with the web installer for Mac on the freenetproject.org > page. I choose the autostart option. A browser launches and all works > well. No shortcut to Freenet is installed on my desktop (as was the > case on previous explorations some years ago on a Win2000 machine.) > > > However, if I shut down or have to restart my machine or node for any > reason, no browser (I use Firefox 3.0.5) can access fproxy with > 127.0.0.1:. That page is "unavailable". > > > I'd rather not have to re-install and rebuild the datastore every > time. Is there some way to manually start/restart Freenet? (I assume > that "start" means to connect to some nodes, but I'm not sure.) > > > Many thanks. > > > NewbieHarry > > I never used Freenet on a Mac but I heard that behind its peculiar GUI it's very similar to other Unix-based systems, therefore the way start/stop/restart Freenet manually would be: - Open a terminal (/Apps/Terminal.app or something like that IIRC) - Navigate to the Freenet directory: type "cd /path/to/Freenet" (no quotes) where /path/to/Freenet is the actual path to your Freenet directory (it should default to /Users//Freenet or something similar). Hit Enter to execute the command. - Type the command "./run.sh start" (no quotes) and hit Enter. That should start Freenet. To stop: ./run.sh stop To restart: ./run.sh restart Double check that the Freenet directory is owned by your user and that the startup script (run.sh) is executable. Command to change ownership for the directory and all its content (as root) "chown /path/to/Freenet -R" (no quotes) Chown = change ownership. is the user name that you use to log in, /path/to/Freenet is the path to the freenet directory. (I'm not sure but I suspect that OSX, as other Unix-based OSs, may be case-sensitive: make sure you type stuff in the right case: the Freenet directory has by default a capital F in the name) -R stands for "recurse" into subdirectories. Command to make run.sh executable (no need to run this as root, as long as your regular users owns the Freenet directory and all its content) "chmod +x run.sh" (no quotes) +x = allow execute -x = disallow execute As for autostart, I don't know what scheduler OSX uses or how to add/remove startup jobs. If you can find out with Google, you can probably add start Freenet with "/path/to/Freenet/run.sh start" (no quotes, as usual) Sorry I cant give you a complete answer because I don't have a Mac at hands and it was quite some time ago since I even saw one, hopefully some Mac user will jump in and fill the parts that I left out.
Re: [freenet-support] Bug in HTTP socket handler in 1208?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:58:48 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: I have seen a couple times my node stall due to exceeding the thread limit, caused by an absurd 333 HTTP socket handlers (86.7% of thread usage). (My node's thread limit is 300). I believe this is caused by my browser (dillo) making too many connections to fproxy. But, nevertheless, shouldn't these threads / sockets die after a few minutes? They were all still alive after more than 10mins of stalling my node, after which I had to restart to get things flowing again. The problem still exists in 1209. (If my Dillo browser opens a page with hundreds of thumbnails and no limit to the number of connections made to the server/fproxy (It probably relies on http server response codes?), the number of HTTP socket handlers will sky-rocket above the limit, and stay there. Again, how long are these threads supposed to last for and why are they even allowed to exist (can't fproxy throttle the number of incoming connections?). There still do remain a couple Pooled threads awaiting work, but the node effectively shuts down -- cpu drops to almost nothing, and all traffic seems to stop. ___ 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
