Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-02-18 Thread Niklas Bergh
 I've repeatedly seen old machines like my P3-600 disregarded as
 irrelevant, and not worth optimizing for, in terms of the Freenet
 network.

See above. The best thing I can do for you is get rate limiting working
properly. And I think Freenet should easily run on a 600MHz machine, or
something is wrong. I'm just skeptical about running on 128MB, or on
200MHz machines.

I dont think it impossible to run a node on 128MB.. However.. if the OS uses
up 80 of those we will definitely end up having problems.


/N

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


Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-02-17 Thread Toad
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 06:56:42AM -0600, S wrote:
 On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:33:42 +0100
 Maximilian Mehnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Freenet is one of the most beautiful ideas I ever hit on.
  But it should be possible to run it on a small pentium machine with no
  more than 100MB of RAM.
 
 I agree 100%. I have a machine dedicated to Freenet. It doesn't do
 anything else, period. It's a P3 600mhz with 192 megs of RAM. Both
 stable and unstable will max out its CPU most of the time. I suspect
 that the core issue is RAM, but I don't know for sure.

IF the core issue is CPU, then a working implementation of rate limiting
will allow the node to receive just as many requests as it can deal
with. If the CPU is maxed out, even if this is due to memory
usage/swapping, this will result in high routingTime, and
messageSendTimeRequest, both of which are supposed to be taken into
account by rate limiting, so again, WHEN rate limiting works properly,
it should be able to deal with substandard-performance nodes reasonably
well. Actually, I have this exact same problem on my development node,
not because of the hardware (which is solid but not excessive - XP
2800+, 1GB RAM, striped IDE), but because of the logging I use, which
uses a LOT of RAM, and a LOT of CPU.
 
 I've repeatedly seen old machines like my P3-600 disregarded as
 irrelevant, and not worth optimizing for, in terms of the Freenet
 network. 

See above. The best thing I can do for you is get rate limiting working
properly. And I think Freenet should easily run on a 600MHz machine, or
something is wrong. I'm just skeptical about running on 128MB, or on
200MHz machines.

 I hesitate to call this particular box old. I have an IBM
 Aptiva, with a whopping Pentium 75, 40 megs of RAM, running FreeBSD,
 acting as the gatekeeper for my LAN. It pushes a few gigs worth of data
 each day, ipfw filtering included, with a load of 0.01 most of the time,
 and doesn't complain! Now that's what I call old, but the damn thing
 keeps on rolling.

Nothing wrong with that for a firewall machine.
 
 Yet I continue to devote the P3 to doing nothing but running a Freenet
 node, and I will keep doing so for the forseeable future. To me, it's
 worth it. There have been some significant improvements over the past
 few months, and I don't doubt that the improvements will continue. You
 didn't elaborate about how long you'd been away from Freenet, but within
 the past 6 months, there have been ups and downs. Recently there have
 been several ups, especially multiplexing.
 
 Having 400MB of RAM used by the node's java processes seems out of whack.
 In fact that sounds insane. Which threadFactory is your configuration
 file set to use? If you set it to use the YThreadFactory, do things
 improve?
 
 If you can, please keep running your node!
 
 -s
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.


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

Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-02-17 Thread Toad
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:13:05AM +0100, Maximilian Mehnert wrote:
 Am Mi, den 28.01.2004 schrieb Maximilian Mehnert um 15:28:
   Having 400MB of RAM used by the node's java processes seems out of whack.
   In fact that sounds insane. Which threadFactory is your configuration
   file set to use? If you set it to use the YThreadFactory, do things
   improve?
 
 Sorry. Being online for about 12 hours freenet again succeeded in
 overloading an acceptable machine (1.5GHz, 512MB Ram), leaving it
 doing nothing but swapping RAM.
 
 I think it's time to take a break. Perhaps I'll check back in a year ;-)
 
 I'm still of the opinion that freenet will only spread if people are
 able to run it on a small router or in background with no noticeable
 impact on performance.

Only _REAL_ geeks will do this. Freenet will spread if it can
unobtrusively run on a windoze PC, only needing to be turned off for
Quake III.
 
 If I had a second life I would help redoing the whole thing in ocaml or
 something like that. But I have the miserable feeling that studying
 medicine will keep me busy for the next years. :-( Ok, no more flame
 wars ;-)

:)

It is possible to compile java to native code, that may help CPU-wise.
Memory-wise, progress needs to be made, but the important thing at the
moment is to get rate limiting working properly.
 
 Regards,
 
 Max
 -- 
 Maximilian Mehnert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.


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

Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-02-17 Thread Toad
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:28:27PM +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
 
 On 29/01/2004, at 10:13 PM, Maximilian Mehnert wrote:
 
 Am Mi, den 28.01.2004 schrieb Maximilian Mehnert um 15:28:
 Having 400MB of RAM used by the node's java processes seems out of 
 whack.
 In fact that sounds insane. Which threadFactory is your configuration
 file set to use? If you set it to use the YThreadFactory, do things
 improve?
 
 Sorry. Being online for about 12 hours freenet again succeeded in
 overloading an acceptable machine (1.5GHz, 512MB Ram), leaving it
 doing nothing but swapping RAM.
 
 I think it's time to take a break. Perhaps I'll check back in a year 
 ;-)
 
 I'm still of the opinion that freenet will only spread if people are
 able to run it on a small router or in background with no noticeable
 impact on performance.
 
 I agree here. My router is a 1.53Ghz Athlon (XP1800+) with 512MB of 
 RAM. The CPU isn't taxed, but the memory is. Also, bandwidth is used 
 quite readily. I have a quota, and it'd be nice to be able to give 
 Freenet a maximum monthly allocation, and have it shut down after 
 that's passed the limit. 

Have you tried averageOutputBandwidthLimit etc?

 I have no problem donating 2-3GB/month of 
 traffic, but it takes 4-5 if I don't watch it, that's with a limit of 
 2kb/sec both ways.

:

 
 It would be nice if anyone with a spare P266 box could fire up freenet 
 and just let it sit there.

Absolutely.
 
 If I had a second life I would help redoing the whole thing in ocaml or
 something like that. But I have the miserable feeling that studying
 medicine will keep me busy for the next years. :-( Ok, no more flame
 wars ;-)
 
 If I knew the protocol, and knew enough about networking, I'd do a 
 Cocoa client. I have no problems with continually changing the 
 protocol, I'd just have to participate on the developer mailing list. 
 Unfortunately there's no easy place to start from. I guess that's what 
 you get with pre-release software.
 
 Another good idea would be a 'freenet browser', something like Gecko or 
 WebKit (for OS X) embedded in to a freenet thing, with privacy options 
 auto set.

Yikes. Please, keep the client separate. It can talk to the node via
FCP. A freenet specific browser might be nice though.
 
 --
 Phillip Hutchings
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.sitharus.com/
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.


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

Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-02-17 Thread Toad
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:21:13PM +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
 And how many browsers do that? Sure, I'm not sure about writing a 
 plugin, since most of the time they can only add processing for 
 different MIME types, whereas a different browser using a freenet:// 
 protocol could connect through FCP and do things like simplify 
 splitfiles, insertions and the like with an interface that normal users 
 could use. Sure, there's things such as fiw, but it's not the easiest 
 of things to use. Having the whole feature set in one application would 
 make it a lot nicer.

Uhm, what is the problem with splitfile downloads? Yes, it LOOKS
intimidating, but it's quite usable by the average cubicle monkey let
alone freenet-using geek. We can't make it much more transparent,
because of issues with resource usage - we MUST have the user confirm
the download at some stage, otherwise it can be exploited very badly.
There may be workarounds for this of course.
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.


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

Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-01-30 Thread Phillip Hutchings
On 29/01/2004, at 10:13 PM, Maximilian Mehnert wrote:

Am Mi, den 28.01.2004 schrieb Maximilian Mehnert um 15:28:
Having 400MB of RAM used by the node's java processes seems out of 
whack.
In fact that sounds insane. Which threadFactory is your configuration
file set to use? If you set it to use the YThreadFactory, do things
improve?
Sorry. Being online for about 12 hours freenet again succeeded in
overloading an acceptable machine (1.5GHz, 512MB Ram), leaving it
doing nothing but swapping RAM.
I think it's time to take a break. Perhaps I'll check back in a year 
;-)

I'm still of the opinion that freenet will only spread if people are
able to run it on a small router or in background with no noticeable
impact on performance.
I agree here. My router is a 1.53Ghz Athlon (XP1800+) with 512MB of 
RAM. The CPU isn't taxed, but the memory is. Also, bandwidth is used 
quite readily. I have a quota, and it'd be nice to be able to give 
Freenet a maximum monthly allocation, and have it shut down after 
that's passed the limit. I have no problem donating 2-3GB/month of 
traffic, but it takes 4-5 if I don't watch it, that's with a limit of 
2kb/sec both ways.

It would be nice if anyone with a spare P266 box could fire up freenet 
and just let it sit there.

If I had a second life I would help redoing the whole thing in ocaml or
something like that. But I have the miserable feeling that studying
medicine will keep me busy for the next years. :-( Ok, no more flame
wars ;-)
If I knew the protocol, and knew enough about networking, I'd do a 
Cocoa client. I have no problems with continually changing the 
protocol, I'd just have to participate on the developer mailing list. 
Unfortunately there's no easy place to start from. I guess that's what 
you get with pre-release software.

Another good idea would be a 'freenet browser', something like Gecko or 
WebKit (for OS X) embedded in to a freenet thing, with privacy options 
auto set.

--
Phillip Hutchings
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.sitharus.com/


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-01-30 Thread David Masover
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| Another good idea would be a 'freenet browser', something like Gecko or

No, it wouldn't.  Gecko is for rendering (and I'd guess that WebKit is
also).  It takes html and renders it.  Freenet currently uses html, and
will probably continue to use it (at least for browsing).
It doesn't use http, of course, but adding a freenet://  URL style
wouldn't change things too much, since you need the key first anyway --
it's going to be a long address no matter what.  All that would do is
allow for URLs to be to somewhere other than localhost, which can
already be done (not sure if it has) by the server itself.  This is
better, because it doesn't require modifying a browser, and so far
there's only one server.
And if you wanted to do such a thing, or the privacy features
auto-set, you would do it as a browser extension -- notice when it's a
freenet url, and don't do things like caching it.  For this, you'd
probably just specify a particular host:port that is a freenet url.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQIVAwUBQBrpewisZLIF6uqOAQJsuBAAiKP95NiE0ByRAwRamefiEB+jNM5d7wPd
+QTy7x/s+SrhuarMtvnaGjZIjBzHOjv13lMm/3lA6cDlNOQjCLfapktmKN9mxn9l
qQHE2ELBi8FQaYeuEkESH4M0TFQYpiUv9Zcxa5+IPzSbWOYfrRKoqUUlLHahsEAl
mIFizhGfjBKRMKmia0YlcMYlUR6psuhBMVgU+A0N7oCHC8CTKeXM4HvMgUp7DOjK
M1IS5YW1l7mvE0OXj2Y3+7lW6gFPT1L15qdV46OK1lc9JcUii9MD2T3sKf2Tiq0q
QLNCGgv1voLkz5LLrOzJnZRAVhryE/nmfKVLlsLD1YFv2d8p5/xGhho66FvwDdRb
uAwmrjK7sLy8HxSJGcsZO5MEhb+4d4nBUzycT2Xc4lnpEjRaoq0yBnDVPnvIfS3A
a0GtsAuP69BTJKfM7mo+qZlyYjyBvfsztKXFwxx95F3Hq39+AISuEbdrie4TA7Cy
8+8MvMfpAoHwC0gUWkuDQLDaKGo8D8HUve2oTZLylhShNvM6wumYUYVx+fL0gViq
SubnJLi7JLA3ffQ0m24FFjZQJeWAUaddqKnQeTBpNEMDrkigmzPsAens7WnIISvJ
sA0MF/8TX7pYX+QMfP1AS93+LgbKJUOFCux+aby7CvtIMG3FTxafvZpGWjyqkApW
21bVOtLCkNA=
=f50Y
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-01-30 Thread Phillip Hutchings
On 31/01/2004, at 12:32 PM, David Masover wrote:

| Another good idea would be a 'freenet browser', something like Gecko 
or

No, it wouldn't.  Gecko is for rendering (and I'd guess that WebKit is
also).  It takes html and renders it.  Freenet currently uses html, and
will probably continue to use it (at least for browsing).
I am quite aware of what WebKit and Gecko do.

It doesn't use http, of course, but adding a freenet://  URL style
wouldn't change things too much, since you need the key first anyway --
it's going to be a long address no matter what.  All that would do is
allow for URLs to be to somewhere other than localhost, which can
already be done (not sure if it has) by the server itself.  This is
better, because it doesn't require modifying a browser, and so far
there's only one server.
Or 192.168.0.1 in my case.

And if you wanted to do such a thing, or the privacy features
auto-set, you would do it as a browser extension -- notice when it's a
freenet url, and don't do things like caching it.  For this, you'd
probably just specify a particular host:port that is a freenet url.
And how many browsers do that? Sure, I'm not sure about writing a 
plugin, since most of the time they can only add processing for 
different MIME types, whereas a different browser using a freenet:// 
protocol could connect through FCP and do things like simplify 
splitfiles, insertions and the like with an interface that normal users 
could use. Sure, there's things such as fiw, but it's not the easiest 
of things to use. Having the whole feature set in one application would 
make it a lot nicer.

--
Phillip Hutchings
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.sitharus.com/


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-01-29 Thread Maximilian Mehnert
Am Mi, den 28.01.2004 schrieb Maximilian Mehnert um 15:28:
  Having 400MB of RAM used by the node's java processes seems out of whack.
  In fact that sounds insane. Which threadFactory is your configuration
  file set to use? If you set it to use the YThreadFactory, do things
  improve?

Sorry. Being online for about 12 hours freenet again succeeded in
overloading an acceptable machine (1.5GHz, 512MB Ram), leaving it
doing nothing but swapping RAM.

I think it's time to take a break. Perhaps I'll check back in a year ;-)

I'm still of the opinion that freenet will only spread if people are
able to run it on a small router or in background with no noticeable
impact on performance.

If I had a second life I would help redoing the whole thing in ocaml or
something like that. But I have the miserable feeling that studying
medicine will keep me busy for the next years. :-( Ok, no more flame
wars ;-)

Regards,

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


[freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-01-28 Thread Maximilian Mehnert
Yesterday I decided to test freenet again after a long time of
resignation.
I downloaded and updated to the latest stable. It even seemed to work
well.  I was so enthusiastic, I even planned to set up a permanent node
though performance was terrible even after two or three hours on a
broadband connection.
So I decided to let it run the whole day, assuming that the situation
would improve.

Logging in in the evening via ssh was nearly impossible. More than 400MB
of RAM was claimed by java-threads at this time. 

Freenet is one of the most beautiful ideas I ever hit on.
But it should be possible to run it on a small pentium machine with no
more than 100MB of RAM.

How shall freenet ever become popular if one needs to donate a high
performance machine to the sole task of running freenet?
From this point of view and IMHO ressource consumption is by far the
biggest bug freenet has at the moment.

Regards,

Max
-- 
Maximilian Mehnert [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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


Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-01-28 Thread S
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:33:42 +0100
Maximilian Mehnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Freenet is one of the most beautiful ideas I ever hit on.
 But it should be possible to run it on a small pentium machine with no
 more than 100MB of RAM.

I agree 100%. I have a machine dedicated to Freenet. It doesn't do
anything else, period. It's a P3 600mhz with 192 megs of RAM. Both
stable and unstable will max out its CPU most of the time. I suspect
that the core issue is RAM, but I don't know for sure.

I've repeatedly seen old machines like my P3-600 disregarded as
irrelevant, and not worth optimizing for, in terms of the Freenet
network. I hesitate to call this particular box old. I have an IBM
Aptiva, with a whopping Pentium 75, 40 megs of RAM, running FreeBSD,
acting as the gatekeeper for my LAN. It pushes a few gigs worth of data
each day, ipfw filtering included, with a load of 0.01 most of the time,
and doesn't complain! Now that's what I call old, but the damn thing
keeps on rolling.

Yet I continue to devote the P3 to doing nothing but running a Freenet
node, and I will keep doing so for the forseeable future. To me, it's
worth it. There have been some significant improvements over the past
few months, and I don't doubt that the improvements will continue. You
didn't elaborate about how long you'd been away from Freenet, but within
the past 6 months, there have been ups and downs. Recently there have
been several ups, especially multiplexing.

Having 400MB of RAM used by the node's java processes seems out of whack.
In fact that sounds insane. Which threadFactory is your configuration
file set to use? If you set it to use the YThreadFactory, do things
improve?

If you can, please keep running your node!

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


Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-01-28 Thread Maximilian Mehnert
 Having 400MB of RAM used by the node's java processes seems out of whack.
 In fact that sounds insane. Which threadFactory is your configuration
 file set to use? If you set it to use the YThreadFactory, do things
 improve?

At the moment it looks ok. I upgraded to 5065 and I'm using
YThreadFactory.
Freenet is running an hour or so, using about 100MB of RAM.
Grokking the freenet.conf again I even noticed several options to tweak
the number of running threads. Perhaps I'll try this.

If memory usage keeps being stable I think I'll even get a memory
upgrade for my PII-Router at home ;-)

Regards,
Max

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


RE: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064

2004-01-28 Thread Niklas Bergh


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of S
 Sent: den 28 januari 2004 13:57
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064
 
 
 On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:33:42 +0100
 Maximilian Mehnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Freenet is one of the most beautiful ideas I ever hit on.
  But it should be possible to run it on a small pentium 
 machine with no 
  more than 100MB of RAM.
 
 I agree 100%. I have a machine dedicated to Freenet. It 
 doesn't do anything else, period. It's a P3 600mhz with 192 
 megs of RAM. Both stable and unstable will max out its CPU 
 most of the time. I suspect that the core issue is RAM, but I 
 don't know for sure.

Hmm.. Not necessarily I have loads of ram and a similar CPU and it is
still maxed out :)

/N

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