Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Friday 28 January 2011 18:39:53 Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:11:29 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > CC'ing Martin in case he has any ideas. > > > > On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:01:28 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:49:57 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:17:15 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:55:58 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please > > > > > > > > > > > > upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of > > > > > > > > > > > > this build is intended to try to improve network > > > > > > > > > > > > performance and particularly to prevent transfer > > > > > > > > > > > > failures especially on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer > > > > > > > > > > > > coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self > > > > > > > > > > > > after a request has taken too long. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for > > > > > > > > > > > > a local request, and explain why this is safe in > > > > > > > > > > > > comments. However it will go away when we get rid > > > > > > > > > > > > of receiver-side transfer cancels anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we > > > > > > > > > > > > disconnect due to a timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer > > > > > > > > > > > > necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver > > > > > > > > > > > > cancels too which will further simplify matters. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input > > > > > > > > > > > bandwidth sanely, on a congested connection -- it > > > > > > > > > > > entirely consumes my already busy connection. (Aka. > > > > > > > > > > > my freenet is still unusable here.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is > > > > > > > > > > extraordinarily difficult and most people have fat > > > > > > > > > > pipes downstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point > > > > > > > > doesn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a > > > > > > > running Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, > > > > > > > since it will flood my internet connection to an unusable > > > > > > > state. > > > > > > > > > > > > A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and > > > > > > constantly announces because your connection is broken? How is > > > > > > that useful? > > > > > > > > > > My connection isn't broken. I actually took much pain to > > > > > somewhat guarantee that my Freenet gets the bandwidth I > > > > > allocate it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" > > > > > > > from a peer, after it continues to flood us for many > > > > > > > minutes? > > > > > > > > > > > > You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely > > > > > > your fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data. > > > > > > Freenet is tested and developed on typical connections which > > > > > > have lots of downstream bandwidth and not much upstream > > > > > > bandwidth. And Freenet is only doing exactly what TCP would > > > > > > do! Admittedly TCP has a different algorithm for estimating > > > > > > round trip times, and a more precise congestion control > > > > > > mechanism. But I have yet to be convinced that this is a > > > > > > serious issue for any other person than you and therefore > > > > > > worth spending significant amounts of developer time on. I'm > > > > > > also not sure exactly what would fix it... > > > > > > > > > > I really think you haven't understood the problem yet. This > > > > > isn't just a bumpy a
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Friday 28 January 2011 18:25:09 Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:14:14 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > (My last flood occurred for over 10 minutes, and then managed to > > > > > stop. I believe all 5 of my connected strangers were listed as > > > > > BackedOff during the flood. I will try to provide more details > > > > > and more testing.) > > > > > > > > Was your upstream saturated at the time due to e.g. external > > > > pressure? > > > > > > Nope. It might have started the flood -- I'll do some more testing, > > > but during the flood the connection was only minimally being used. > > > (I really don't know why my peers will still dumping so much data > > > onto my node -- perhaps it was in their to-send queues? Perhaps > > > there is a bug, and they didn't get my slow-down traffic messages?) > > > > What slow down messages? > > > > Are you saying that the peers are actually doing exactly what the > > node is asking of them, i.e. sending useful data? I.e. it's not a > > problem with constant resends? > > How does one differentiate between a resend and useful data? Generally you don't on the receiver side. On the sender side it is obvious from the stats - both the overall bandwidth stats and the per-peer in/out/resent stats. > Does the > value in the /stats page, or on the peer-list page indicate useful > data? If so, it is steadily rising, even when the peer is backed off, > even when my downstream is peaked at FIVE TIMES my downstream limit :p > completely saturating my downstream (upstream is always generally > low-traffic), for many (~5+) minutes. IMHO it is likely that it is resends because we do *try* to respect the downstream limits in our acceptance of requests. I.e. we only accept as many requests as we can transfer the data for, within 60 seconds (realtime) or 120 seconds (bulk); add a bit on for overhead. Plus we have some rarely used token buckets; your reject reasons might be interesting. However, it is still possible for it to max it out for a while even without resending; it just seems more likely that it is resending. The difficulty with the resending theory is that if your upstream is okay, and you don't have the sort of connection where saturating your downstream also makes your upstream break (I believe some forms of DSL have this problem or used to), there is no real reason to expect mass resend, except perhaps for hard to identify bugs. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Friday 28 January 2011 23:04:27 Phillip Hutchings wrote: > > >> I was referring to Freenet's custom congestion control. There is no > >> resending of UDP packets, unless Freenet pro-actively resends it. > > > > Right, and what we do is we resend packets if they are not acknowledged > > after a few round trips. Which is pretty much what TCP does. > > I'm not entirely sure how Freenet does it, but it doesn't sound quite the > same as TCP. > > Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on TCP > > In TCP congestion control is handled by the window size, the exponential > backoff algorithm and estimated round-trip time. > > The window size controls how many bytes can by 'in-flight', that is sent > without an ACK received. This is advertised by the receiver as part of the > handshake. > > If an ACK isn't received after a given delay the packet is resent and the > window is decreased, say by a power of two. When the ACKs are received in a > timely fashion the window size is increased linearly. This stabilises the > transmission rate fairly well. Right. We do exactly this, in the link-level AIMD's. However, the congestion window at the moment operates at a relatively high level, not directly controlling the packets in flight, but only controlling the queued-plus-in-flight block transfer messages (not all packets). This is one of several things that needs to be fixed. > > TCP is more complex than this brief summary, as it also implements a > slow-start algorithm and makes an effort to avoid hitting backoff by the > linear increase. We also have slow start, and the RFC-specified hack to avoid increasing the window size when we're not filling it. But we need the window to be a true window that applies to all packets, and at the transfer level, not to block transfer messages only. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
>> I was referring to Freenet's custom congestion control. There is no >> resending of UDP packets, unless Freenet pro-actively resends it. > > Right, and what we do is we resend packets if they are not acknowledged after > a few round trips. Which is pretty much what TCP does. I'm not entirely sure how Freenet does it, but it doesn't sound quite the same as TCP. Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on TCP In TCP congestion control is handled by the window size, the exponential backoff algorithm and estimated round-trip time. The window size controls how many bytes can by 'in-flight', that is sent without an ACK received. This is advertised by the receiver as part of the handshake. If an ACK isn't received after a given delay the packet is resent and the window is decreased, say by a power of two. When the ACKs are received in a timely fashion the window size is increased linearly. This stabilises the transmission rate fairly well. TCP is more complex than this brief summary, as it also implements a slow-start algorithm and makes an effort to avoid hitting backoff by the linear increase. ___ 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
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:11:29 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > CC'ing Martin in case he has any ideas. > > On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:01:28 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:49:57 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:17:15 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:55:58 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please > > > > > > > > > > > upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of > > > > > > > > > > > this build is intended to try to improve network > > > > > > > > > > > performance and particularly to prevent transfer > > > > > > > > > > > failures especially on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer > > > > > > > > > > > coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self > > > > > > > > > > > after a request has taken too long. > > > > > > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for > > > > > > > > > > > a local request, and explain why this is safe in > > > > > > > > > > > comments. However it will go away when we get rid > > > > > > > > > > > of receiver-side transfer cancels anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on > > > > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we > > > > > > > > > > > disconnect due to a timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer > > > > > > > > > > > necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and > > > > > > > > > > > transfer cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver > > > > > > > > > > > cancels too which will further simplify matters. > > > > > > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input > > > > > > > > > > bandwidth sanely, on a congested connection -- it > > > > > > > > > > entirely consumes my already busy connection. (Aka. > > > > > > > > > > my freenet is still unusable here.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is > > > > > > > > > extraordinarily difficult and most people have fat > > > > > > > > > pipes downstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point > > > > > > > doesn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a > > > > > > running Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, > > > > > > since it will flood my internet connection to an unusable > > > > > > state. > > > > > > > > > > A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and > > > > > constantly announces because your connection is broken? How is > > > > > that useful? > > > > > > > > My connection isn't broken. I actually took much pain to > > > > somewhat guarantee that my Freenet gets the bandwidth I > > > > allocate it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" > > > > > > from a peer, after it continues to flood us for many > > > > > > minutes? > > > > > > > > > > You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely > > > > > your fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data. > > > > > Freenet is tested and developed on typical connections which > > > > > have lots of downstream bandwidth and not much upstream > > > > > bandwidth. And Freenet is only doing exactly what TCP would > > > > > do! Admittedly TCP has a different algorithm for estimating > > > > > round trip times, and a more precise congestion control > > > > > mechanism. But I have yet to be convinced that this is a > > > > > serious issue for any other person than you and therefore > > > > > worth spending significant amounts of developer time on. I'm > > > > > also not sure exactly what would fix it... > > > > > > > > I really think you haven't understood the problem yet. This > > > > isn't just a bumpy averaging of bursting input -- this is a > > > > *sustained 5+ minute flood that completely uses up 100KB/s > > > > downstream connection, and 5x the bandwidth I allocate it*. > > > > You're not sure what would fix it? Like I mentione
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:14:14 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > (My last flood occurred for over 10 minutes, and then managed to > > > > stop. I believe all 5 of my connected strangers were listed as > > > > BackedOff during the flood. I will try to provide more details > > > > and more testing.) > > > > > > Was your upstream saturated at the time due to e.g. external > > > pressure? > > > > Nope. It might have started the flood -- I'll do some more testing, > > but during the flood the connection was only minimally being used. > > (I really don't know why my peers will still dumping so much data > > onto my node -- perhaps it was in their to-send queues? Perhaps > > there is a bug, and they didn't get my slow-down traffic messages?) > > What slow down messages? > > Are you saying that the peers are actually doing exactly what the > node is asking of them, i.e. sending useful data? I.e. it's not a > problem with constant resends? How does one differentiate between a resend and useful data? Does the value in the /stats page, or on the peer-list page indicate useful data? If so, it is steadily rising, even when the peer is backed off, even when my downstream is peaked at FIVE TIMES my downstream limit :p completely saturating my downstream (upstream is always generally low-traffic), for many (~5+) minutes. ___ 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
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Friday 28 January 2011 18:05:53 Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:44:07 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:01:28 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:49:57 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:17:15 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:55:58 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please > > > > > > > > > > > > upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of > > > > > > > > > > > > this build is intended to try to improve network > > > > > > > > > > > > performance and particularly to prevent transfer > > > > > > > > > > > > failures especially on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer > > > > > > > > > > > > coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self > > > > > > > > > > > > after a request has taken too long. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for > > > > > > > > > > > > a local request, and explain why this is safe in > > > > > > > > > > > > comments. However it will go away when we get rid > > > > > > > > > > > > of receiver-side transfer cancels anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we > > > > > > > > > > > > disconnect due to a timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer > > > > > > > > > > > > necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver > > > > > > > > > > > > cancels too which will further simplify matters. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input > > > > > > > > > > > bandwidth sanely, on a congested connection -- it > > > > > > > > > > > entirely consumes my already busy connection. (Aka. > > > > > > > > > > > my freenet is still unusable here.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is > > > > > > > > > > extraordinarily difficult and most people have fat > > > > > > > > > > pipes downstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point > > > > > > > > doesn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a > > > > > > > running Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, > > > > > > > since it will flood my internet connection to an unusable > > > > > > > state. > > > > > > > > > > > > A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and > > > > > > constantly announces because your connection is broken? How is > > > > > > that useful? > > > > > > > > > > My connection isn't broken. I actually took much pain to > > > > > somewhat guarantee that my Freenet gets the bandwidth I > > > > > allocate it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" > > > > > > > from a peer, after it continues to flood us for many > > > > > > > minutes? > > > > > > > > > > > > You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely > > > > > > your fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data. > > > > > > Freenet is tested and developed on typical connections which > > > > > > have lots of downstream bandwidth and not much upstream > > > > > > bandwidth. And Freenet is only doing exactly what TCP would > > > > > > do! Admittedly TCP has a different algorithm for estimating > > > > > > round trip times, and a more precise congestion control > > > > > > mechanism. But I have yet to be convinced that this is a > > > > > > serious issue for any other person than you and therefore > > > > > > worth spending significant amounts of developer time on. I'm > > > > > > also not sure exactly what would fix it... > > > > > > > > > > I really think you haven't understood the problem yet. This > > > > > isn't just a bumpy averaging of bursting input -- this is a > > > > >
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
CC'ing Martin in case he has any ideas. On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:01:28 Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:49:57 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:17:15 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:55:58 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please > > > > > > > > > > upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of this > > > > > > > > > > build is intended to try to improve network > > > > > > > > > > performance and particularly to prevent transfer > > > > > > > > > > failures especially on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer > > > > > > > > > > coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self after > > > > > > > > > > a request has taken too long. > > > > > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for a > > > > > > > > > > local request, and explain why this is safe in > > > > > > > > > > comments. However it will go away when we get rid of > > > > > > > > > > receiver-side transfer cancels anyway. > > > > > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on > > > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we disconnect > > > > > > > > > > due to a timeout. > > > > > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer > > > > > > > > > > necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and > > > > > > > > > > transfer cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver > > > > > > > > > > cancels too which will further simplify matters. > > > > > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input bandwidth > > > > > > > > > sanely, on a congested connection -- it entirely > > > > > > > > > consumes my already busy connection. (Aka. my freenet > > > > > > > > > is still unusable here.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is > > > > > > > > extraordinarily difficult and most people have fat pipes > > > > > > > > downstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > > > > > > > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point > > > > > > doesn't it? > > > > > > > > > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a > > > > > running Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, > > > > > since it will flood my internet connection to an unusable state. > > > > > > > > A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and > > > > constantly announces because your connection is broken? How is > > > > that useful? > > > > > > My connection isn't broken. I actually took much pain to somewhat > > > guarantee that my Freenet gets the bandwidth I allocate it. > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" > > > > > from a peer, after it continues to flood us for many minutes? > > > > > > > > You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely your > > > > fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data. Freenet is > > > > tested and developed on typical connections which have lots of > > > > downstream bandwidth and not much upstream bandwidth. And Freenet > > > > is only doing exactly what TCP would do! Admittedly TCP has a > > > > different algorithm for estimating round trip times, and a more > > > > precise congestion control mechanism. But I have yet to be > > > > convinced that this is a serious issue for any other person than > > > > you and therefore worth spending significant amounts of developer > > > > time on. I'm also not sure exactly what would fix it... > > > > > > I really think you haven't understood the problem yet. This isn't > > > just a bumpy averaging of bursting input -- this is a *sustained 5+ > > > minute flood that completely uses up 100KB/s downstream connection, > > > and 5x the bandwidth I allocate it*. You're not sure what would fix > > > it? Like I mentioned a couple times here already, *how about after > > > a minute or two, telling my connected peers to SLOW DOWN*? > > > > The reason they are sending data is that they are NOT receiving your > > acknowledgements. So sending yet more control data won't help. > > Well that sure sounds like
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:44:07 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:01:28 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:49:57 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:17:15 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:55:58 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please > > > > > > > > > > > upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of > > > > > > > > > > > this build is intended to try to improve network > > > > > > > > > > > performance and particularly to prevent transfer > > > > > > > > > > > failures especially on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer > > > > > > > > > > > coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self > > > > > > > > > > > after a request has taken too long. > > > > > > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for > > > > > > > > > > > a local request, and explain why this is safe in > > > > > > > > > > > comments. However it will go away when we get rid > > > > > > > > > > > of receiver-side transfer cancels anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on > > > > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we > > > > > > > > > > > disconnect due to a timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer > > > > > > > > > > > necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and > > > > > > > > > > > transfer cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver > > > > > > > > > > > cancels too which will further simplify matters. > > > > > > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input > > > > > > > > > > bandwidth sanely, on a congested connection -- it > > > > > > > > > > entirely consumes my already busy connection. (Aka. > > > > > > > > > > my freenet is still unusable here.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is > > > > > > > > > extraordinarily difficult and most people have fat > > > > > > > > > pipes downstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point > > > > > > > doesn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a > > > > > > running Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, > > > > > > since it will flood my internet connection to an unusable > > > > > > state. > > > > > > > > > > A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and > > > > > constantly announces because your connection is broken? How is > > > > > that useful? > > > > > > > > My connection isn't broken. I actually took much pain to > > > > somewhat guarantee that my Freenet gets the bandwidth I > > > > allocate it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" > > > > > > from a peer, after it continues to flood us for many > > > > > > minutes? > > > > > > > > > > You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely > > > > > your fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data. > > > > > Freenet is tested and developed on typical connections which > > > > > have lots of downstream bandwidth and not much upstream > > > > > bandwidth. And Freenet is only doing exactly what TCP would > > > > > do! Admittedly TCP has a different algorithm for estimating > > > > > round trip times, and a more precise congestion control > > > > > mechanism. But I have yet to be convinced that this is a > > > > > serious issue for any other person than you and therefore > > > > > worth spending significant amounts of developer time on. I'm > > > > > also not sure exactly what would fix it... > > > > > > > > I really think you haven't understood the problem yet. This > > > > isn't just a bumpy averaging of bursting input -- this is a > > > > *sustained 5+ minute flood that completely uses up 100KB/s > > > > downstream connection, and 5x the bandwidth I allocate it*. > > > > You're not sure what would fix it? Like I mentioned a couple > > > > times here already, *how a
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:01:28 Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:49:57 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:17:15 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:55:58 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please > > > > > > > > > > upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of this > > > > > > > > > > build is intended to try to improve network > > > > > > > > > > performance and particularly to prevent transfer > > > > > > > > > > failures especially on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer > > > > > > > > > > coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self after > > > > > > > > > > a request has taken too long. > > > > > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for a > > > > > > > > > > local request, and explain why this is safe in > > > > > > > > > > comments. However it will go away when we get rid of > > > > > > > > > > receiver-side transfer cancels anyway. > > > > > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on > > > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we disconnect > > > > > > > > > > due to a timeout. > > > > > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer > > > > > > > > > > necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and > > > > > > > > > > transfer cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver > > > > > > > > > > cancels too which will further simplify matters. > > > > > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input bandwidth > > > > > > > > > sanely, on a congested connection -- it entirely > > > > > > > > > consumes my already busy connection. (Aka. my freenet > > > > > > > > > is still unusable here.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is > > > > > > > > extraordinarily difficult and most people have fat pipes > > > > > > > > downstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > > > > > > > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point > > > > > > doesn't it? > > > > > > > > > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a > > > > > running Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, > > > > > since it will flood my internet connection to an unusable state. > > > > > > > > A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and > > > > constantly announces because your connection is broken? How is > > > > that useful? > > > > > > My connection isn't broken. I actually took much pain to somewhat > > > guarantee that my Freenet gets the bandwidth I allocate it. > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" > > > > > from a peer, after it continues to flood us for many minutes? > > > > > > > > You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely your > > > > fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data. Freenet is > > > > tested and developed on typical connections which have lots of > > > > downstream bandwidth and not much upstream bandwidth. And Freenet > > > > is only doing exactly what TCP would do! Admittedly TCP has a > > > > different algorithm for estimating round trip times, and a more > > > > precise congestion control mechanism. But I have yet to be > > > > convinced that this is a serious issue for any other person than > > > > you and therefore worth spending significant amounts of developer > > > > time on. I'm also not sure exactly what would fix it... > > > > > > I really think you haven't understood the problem yet. This isn't > > > just a bumpy averaging of bursting input -- this is a *sustained 5+ > > > minute flood that completely uses up 100KB/s downstream connection, > > > and 5x the bandwidth I allocate it*. You're not sure what would fix > > > it? Like I mentioned a couple times here already, *how about after > > > a minute or two, telling my connected peers to SLOW DOWN*? > > > > The reason they are sending data is that they are NOT receiving your > > acknowledgements. So sending yet more control data won't help. > > Well that sure sounds like a recipe for disaster. How long are peers
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:01:28 -0500, Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:49:57 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:17:15 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:55:58 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please > > > > > > > > > > upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of > > > > > > > > > > this build is intended to try to improve network > > > > > > > > > > performance and particularly to prevent transfer > > > > > > > > > > failures especially on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer > > > > > > > > > > coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self > > > > > > > > > > after a request has taken too long. > > > > > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for a > > > > > > > > > > local request, and explain why this is safe in > > > > > > > > > > comments. However it will go away when we get rid of > > > > > > > > > > receiver-side transfer cancels anyway. > > > > > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on > > > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we disconnect > > > > > > > > > > due to a timeout. > > > > > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer > > > > > > > > > > necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and > > > > > > > > > > transfer cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver > > > > > > > > > > cancels too which will further simplify matters. > > > > > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input > > > > > > > > > bandwidth sanely, on a congested connection -- it > > > > > > > > > entirely consumes my already busy connection. (Aka. > > > > > > > > > my freenet is still unusable here.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is > > > > > > > > extraordinarily difficult and most people have fat pipes > > > > > > > > downstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > > > > > > > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point > > > > > > doesn't it? > > > > > > > > > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a > > > > > running Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, > > > > > since it will flood my internet connection to an unusable > > > > > state. > > > > > > > > A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and > > > > constantly announces because your connection is broken? How is > > > > that useful? > > > > > > My connection isn't broken. I actually took much pain to somewhat > > > guarantee that my Freenet gets the bandwidth I allocate it. > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" > > > > > from a peer, after it continues to flood us for many minutes? > > > > > > > > You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely > > > > your fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data. > > > > Freenet is tested and developed on typical connections which > > > > have lots of downstream bandwidth and not much upstream > > > > bandwidth. And Freenet is only doing exactly what TCP would do! > > > > Admittedly TCP has a different algorithm for estimating round > > > > trip times, and a more precise congestion control mechanism. > > > > But I have yet to be convinced that this is a serious issue for > > > > any other person than you and therefore worth spending > > > > significant amounts of developer time on. I'm also not sure > > > > exactly what would fix it... > > > > > > I really think you haven't understood the problem yet. This isn't > > > just a bumpy averaging of bursting input -- this is a *sustained 5 > > > + minute flood that completely uses up 100KB/s downstream > > > connection, and 5x the bandwidth I allocate it*. You're not sure > > > what would fix it? Like I mentioned a couple times here already, > > > *how about after a minute or two, telling my connected peers to > > > SLOW DOWN*? > > > > The reason they are sending data is that they are NOT receiving your > > acknowledgements. So sending yet more control data won't help. > > Well that sure sounds like a r
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:49:57 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:17:15 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:55:58 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please > > > > > > > > > upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of this > > > > > > > > > build is intended to try to improve network > > > > > > > > > performance and particularly to prevent transfer > > > > > > > > > failures especially on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer > > > > > > > > > coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self after > > > > > > > > > a request has taken too long. > > > > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for a > > > > > > > > > local request, and explain why this is safe in > > > > > > > > > comments. However it will go away when we get rid of > > > > > > > > > receiver-side transfer cancels anyway. > > > > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on > > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we disconnect > > > > > > > > > due to a timeout. > > > > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer > > > > > > > > > necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and > > > > > > > > > transfer cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver > > > > > > > > > cancels too which will further simplify matters. > > > > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input bandwidth > > > > > > > > sanely, on a congested connection -- it entirely > > > > > > > > consumes my already busy connection. (Aka. my freenet > > > > > > > > is still unusable here.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is > > > > > > > extraordinarily difficult and most people have fat pipes > > > > > > > downstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > > > > > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point > > > > > doesn't it? > > > > > > > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a > > > > running Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, > > > > since it will flood my internet connection to an unusable state. > > > > > > A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and > > > constantly announces because your connection is broken? How is > > > that useful? > > > > My connection isn't broken. I actually took much pain to somewhat > > guarantee that my Freenet gets the bandwidth I allocate it. > > > > > > > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" > > > > from a peer, after it continues to flood us for many minutes? > > > > > > You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely your > > > fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data. Freenet is > > > tested and developed on typical connections which have lots of > > > downstream bandwidth and not much upstream bandwidth. And Freenet > > > is only doing exactly what TCP would do! Admittedly TCP has a > > > different algorithm for estimating round trip times, and a more > > > precise congestion control mechanism. But I have yet to be > > > convinced that this is a serious issue for any other person than > > > you and therefore worth spending significant amounts of developer > > > time on. I'm also not sure exactly what would fix it... > > > > I really think you haven't understood the problem yet. This isn't > > just a bumpy averaging of bursting input -- this is a *sustained 5+ > > minute flood that completely uses up 100KB/s downstream connection, > > and 5x the bandwidth I allocate it*. You're not sure what would fix > > it? Like I mentioned a couple times here already, *how about after > > a minute or two, telling my connected peers to SLOW DOWN*? > > The reason they are sending data is that they are NOT receiving your > acknowledgements. So sending yet more control data won't help. Well that sure sounds like a recipe for disaster. How long are peers supposed to keep pushing data to un-acknowledging peers, before they do something? (My last flood occurred for over 10 minutes, and then managed to stop. I believe all 5 of my connected strangers were listed as BackedOff during the f
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:17:15 Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:55:58 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please > > > > > > > > upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of this > > > > > > > > build is intended to try to improve network performance > > > > > > > > and particularly to prevent transfer failures especially > > > > > > > > on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer > > > > > > > > coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self after a > > > > > > > > request has taken too long. > > > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for a local > > > > > > > > request, and explain why this is safe in comments. > > > > > > > > However it will go away when we get rid of receiver-side > > > > > > > > transfer cancels anyway. > > > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we disconnect due > > > > > > > > to a timeout. > > > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer > > > > > > > > necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and transfer > > > > > > > > cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver cancels too > > > > > > > > which will further simplify matters. > > > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input bandwidth > > > > > > > sanely, on a congested connection -- it entirely consumes > > > > > > > my already busy connection. (Aka. my freenet is still > > > > > > > unusable here.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is extraordinarily > > > > > > difficult and most people have fat pipes downstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > > > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point doesn't > > > > it? > > > > > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a running > > > Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, since it will > > > flood my internet connection to an unusable state. > > > > A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and constantly > > announces because your connection is broken? How is that useful? > > My connection isn't broken. I actually took much pain to somewhat > guarantee that my Freenet gets the bandwidth I allocate it. > > > > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" from a > > > peer, after it continues to flood us for many minutes? > > > > You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely your > > fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data. Freenet is > > tested and developed on typical connections which have lots of > > downstream bandwidth and not much upstream bandwidth. And Freenet is > > only doing exactly what TCP would do! Admittedly TCP has a different > > algorithm for estimating round trip times, and a more precise > > congestion control mechanism. But I have yet to be convinced that > > this is a serious issue for any other person than you and therefore > > worth spending significant amounts of developer time on. I'm also not > > sure exactly what would fix it... > > I really think you haven't understood the problem yet. This isn't just a > bumpy averaging of bursting input -- this is a *sustained 5+ minute > flood that completely uses up 100KB/s downstream connection, and 5x the > bandwidth I allocate it*. You're not sure what would fix it? Like I > mentioned a couple times here already, *how about after a minute or > two, telling my connected peers to SLOW DOWN*? The reason they are sending data is that they are NOT receiving your acknowledgements. So sending yet more control data won't help. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:55:58 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please > > > > > > > upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of this > > > > > > > build is intended to try to improve network performance > > > > > > > and particularly to prevent transfer failures especially > > > > > > > on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer > > > > > > > coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self after a > > > > > > > request has taken too long. > > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for a local > > > > > > > request, and explain why this is safe in comments. > > > > > > > However it will go away when we get rid of receiver-side > > > > > > > transfer cancels anyway. > > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we disconnect due > > > > > > > to a timeout. > > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer > > > > > > > necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and transfer > > > > > > > cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver cancels too > > > > > > > which will further simplify matters. > > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input bandwidth > > > > > > sanely, on a congested connection -- it entirely consumes > > > > > > my already busy connection. (Aka. my freenet is still > > > > > > unusable here.) > > > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is extraordinarily > > > > > difficult and most people have fat pipes downstream. > > > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point doesn't > > > it? > > > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a running > > Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, since it will > > flood my internet connection to an unusable state. > > A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and constantly > announces because your connection is broken? How is that useful? My connection isn't broken. I actually took much pain to somewhat guarantee that my Freenet gets the bandwidth I allocate it. > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" from a > > peer, after it continues to flood us for many minutes? > > You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely your > fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data. Freenet is > tested and developed on typical connections which have lots of > downstream bandwidth and not much upstream bandwidth. And Freenet is > only doing exactly what TCP would do! Admittedly TCP has a different > algorithm for estimating round trip times, and a more precise > congestion control mechanism. But I have yet to be convinced that > this is a serious issue for any other person than you and therefore > worth spending significant amounts of developer time on. I'm also not > sure exactly what would fix it... I really think you haven't understood the problem yet. This isn't just a bumpy averaging of bursting input -- this is a *sustained 5+ minute flood that completely uses up 100KB/s downstream connection, and 5x the bandwidth I allocate it*. You're not sure what would fix it? Like I mentioned a couple times here already, *how about after a minute or two, telling my connected peers to SLOW DOWN*? ___ 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
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please upgrade, it > > > > > > will be mandatory on Friday. Much of this build is intended to > > > > > > try to improve network performance and particularly to prevent > > > > > > transfer failures especially on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer coalescing, > > > > > > disconnects and reassigning to self after a request has taken > > > > > > too long. > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for a local > > > > > > request, and explain why this is safe in comments. However it > > > > > > will go away when we get rid of receiver-side transfer > > > > > > cancels anyway. > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on timeout. > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we disconnect due to a > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer necessary and > > > > > > involve unnecessary complexity and transfer cancels. We will > > > > > > soon eliminate receiver cancels too which will further > > > > > > simplify matters. > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input bandwidth sanely, > > > > > on a congested connection -- it entirely consumes my already > > > > > busy connection. (Aka. my freenet is still unusable here.) > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is extraordinarily > > > > difficult and most people have fat pipes downstream. > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point doesn't it? > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a running > Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, since it will > flood my internet connection to an unusable state. A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and constantly announces because your connection is broken? How is that useful? > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" from a > peer, after it continues to flood us for many minutes? You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely your fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data. Freenet is tested and developed on typical connections which have lots of downstream bandwidth and not much upstream bandwidth. And Freenet is only doing exactly what TCP would do! Admittedly TCP has a different algorithm for estimating round trip times, and a more precise congestion control mechanism. But I have yet to be convinced that this is a serious issue for any other person than you and therefore worth spending significant amounts of developer time on. I'm also not sure exactly what would fix it... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote: > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please upgrade, it > > > > > will be mandatory on Friday. Much of this build is intended to > > > > > try to improve network performance and particularly to prevent > > > > > transfer failures especially on realtime requests. > > > > > > > > > > Details: > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer coalescing, > > > > > disconnects and reassigning to self after a request has taken > > > > > too long. > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for a local > > > > > request, and explain why this is safe in comments. However it > > > > > will go away when we get rid of receiver-side transfer > > > > > cancels anyway. > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on timeout. > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we disconnect due to a > > > > > timeout. > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer necessary and > > > > > involve unnecessary complexity and transfer cancels. We will > > > > > soon eliminate receiver cancels too which will further > > > > > simplify matters. > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often. > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times. > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code. > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input bandwidth sanely, > > > > on a congested connection -- it entirely consumes my already > > > > busy connection. (Aka. my freenet is still unusable here.) > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is extraordinarily > > > difficult and most people have fat pipes downstream. > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly. > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding? > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point doesn't it? No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a running Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment, since it will flood my internet connection to an unusable state. Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting" from a peer, after it continues to flood us for many minutes? ___ 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
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please upgrade, it will be > mandatory on Friday. Much of this build is intended to try to improve > network performance and particularly to prevent transfer failures > especially on realtime requests. > > Details: > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer coalescing, > disconnects and reassigning to self after a request has taken too > long. > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for a local request, > and explain why this is safe in comments. However it will go away > when we get rid of receiver-side transfer cancels anyway. > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on timeout. > - Always drop the queued messages when we disconnect due to a timeout. > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer necessary and > involve unnecessary complexity and transfer cancels. We will soon > eliminate receiver cancels too which will further simplify matters. > - Remove timed out filters more often. > - Show totals for backoff times. > - Fixes to auto-testing code. This build still can't manage to handle input bandwidth sanely, on a congested connection -- it entirely consumes my already busy connection. (Aka. my freenet is still unusable here.) ___ 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
[freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336
Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of this build is intended to try to improve network performance and particularly to prevent transfer failures especially on realtime requests. Details: - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self after a request has taken too long. - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for a local request, and explain why this is safe in comments. However it will go away when we get rid of receiver-side transfer cancels anyway. - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on timeout. - Always drop the queued messages when we disconnect due to a timeout. - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and transfer cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver cancels too which will further simplify matters. - Remove timed out filters more often. - Show totals for backoff times. - Fixes to auto-testing code. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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
