Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations
On 16/07/2004, at 7:52 AM, Garb wrote: Message: 3 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:54:35 + (UTC) From: Wayne McDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ...The government in New Zealand has decided that 256/256 is the highest broadband speed that our telecom monomoply needs to make available to competitors. :-( ...128/128 is the fastest connection available domestically without a monthly bandwidth cap... Wow Wayne! What a nightmarish situation. Bandwidth capping? 128/128? You guys need to do some serious political work in order to get rid of that monopoly. We had a similar situation here (Denmark), but luckily the telecom monopoly was removed in the mid nineties before the internet took off for real. Btw. cant you get internet feed from cable- and/or electricity-companies as well? That would create some competition. There is no legal monopoly in New Zealand. The marketplace is completely deregulated. There are no legal entry barriers to the market place and very few barriers to become a network operator (benefits like compulsory land access, instant fines for cable breakage...). The monopoly is because of the population distribution - nobody other than Telecom is willing to have wires to most of the population, it costs a lot for little return. The only reason Telecom will put up with it is because the wires were put in place by the government. That said, there's a group of students (including myself ;) at Victoria University who're planning to roll out a large scale IP network based on Cat-5e cable and Power over Ethernet. We've already solved most of the problems ;) Visit http://www.nzwired.net/ if you're interested. The company will be non-profit. -- 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] Re: Freenet Expectations]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:04:47AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: I *am* concerned when you express great surprise that Freenet will work at all on a 768/256 connection. (That was my take on it). I get the impression that you expect Freenet to require an academic university level of bandwidth to function appropriately. Maybe that's the state the project is at now, or heading to. But IMO it needs to be viable at a consumer level of bandwidth. I didn't. I have a 1024/256 domestic grade cable connection. I'd love to see what Freenet is like with decent bandwidth. But since I have no basis of comparison, I'm not disappointed with my 128/128kbits connection. -- 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] Re: Freenet Expectations]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 08:54:35PM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As much as your bandwidth allows. On a capped 256/128 connection Freenet managed to use 1.5GB in a day. Now I have a 10GB cap, not good. Anyway, that's the sort of transfer you can expect - lower your averageBandwidthLimit to keep things sane. I'm amazed that the above still works... *** and you're amazed that 256/128 works (if I'm reading it correctly) then that leaves me out of the cold, and you're suggesting bandwidth needs to be at least 1024/256 for you to expect Freenet to work. No, I'm amazed that averageBandwidthLimit still works. -- 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] Re: Freenet Expectations]
Different views on what's realistic? Will Freenet just be a US or bandwidth rich countries project? The government in New Zealand has decided that 256/256 is the highest broadband speed that our telecom monomoply needs to make available to competitors. :-( 128/128 is the fastest connection available domestically without a monthly bandwidth cap that Freenet would blow out of the water in 5 days. There aren't any business level connections that wouldn't be prohibitively expensive. Which leaves academia (and even per department most would frown on Freenet). Ok I appreciate we're just in a sucky part of the world. I get the impression others are too. But when I read: [snip] I'm amazed that the above still works... *** and you're amazed that 256/128 works (if I'm reading it correctly) then that leaves me out of the cold, and you're suggesting bandwidth needs to be at least 1024/256 for you to expect Freenet to work. Freenet works fine on 256/128, but it chews through bandwidth. What I was thinking of doing was getting a server in a US on a fairly decent connection and running a Freenet node on that. People would be able to get secure tunnels in to the server to the FCP port (and maybe Fred - but I'd prefer FCP only). At the moment I'm looking at a ValueWeb offering - US$65/month in the config I want (some friends also want shells on the box - it'll be running UML). The only problem I have is money. Oh, and RAM - it won't have free reign over the box. 128MB max, closer to 50MB in reality - not ideal. If only Java worked in less RAM, or Freenet worked with less data transfer. I can only allow ~1GB/Month on my connection. Roll on NZWired (nzwired.net) -- Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sitharus.com/ ___ 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] Re: Freenet Expectations
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:20:23PM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: Stephen P. Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I started a freenet node four days ago, using the default freenet.conf settings, adjusted for being behind a firewall. A couple days later I increased the storage to 1G, which required restarting fred. A couple days after that I increased the storage to 30G, again restarting fred. I'm using the latest stable with Sun JDK 1.4.1 on RH8.0 and an approx. 200Mbitps cable modem. I *think* that freenet.conf is set by default to assume as 256Kbits connection (based on a rule of thumb of setting limits to half bandwidth capacity). You would want to adjust: inputBandwidthLimit=1250 and outputBandwidthLimit=1250 LOL. There is no way he has a 200 megabit cable modem. Such things don't exist... Those suggested values are in bytes. You may want to adjust, but the default values would be too low. I'm no expert, but I'd strongly urge you to consider the 1.4.2 Java release: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/download.html Get 1.4.2-05 if you do. 04 had some serious problems.. It's working, kindof. netstat -t -a shows lots of incoming connections to the public port. What does FRED have to say for itself? http://127.0.0.1:/servlet/nodeinfo/networking/ocm Have you got active transmitting inbound and outbound connections? I'm disappointed that the latency on more that half my retrievals has been in hours; some requests are going into their second day. I've had one retrieval succeed after 16 hours. Someone [SNIP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]/YoYo// Data Not found Is this what I should expect? Will it get better over time as I become better connected? No it's not what you should expect, and yes it will get better. My personal experience (counts for very little) is that it took 9 days to become better connected - then suddenyl everything started working beautifully. You may do better than that with better bandwidth and the improved Freenet versions. But I'd wait at least that long to see how good things might be. NINE DAYS?! Yikes. I'm seeing no inordinate load on my machine (Linux); top says the CPU stays between 80 and 90% idle. After two days, only 2G of the 30G I most recently allocated has been consumed. Only 2 Gb would be filled over two days at the default bandwidth rate of 12 000 (versus my suggestion of 12 500 000)! -- 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] Re: Freenet Expectations]
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:10:01AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: There's lots of cool stuff with averaging limits, and immediate limits, and gradual adjustment. Together with incoming being not directly under control. It works very well for those of us with monthly bandwidth caps. It does?! I thought the average limiter didn't work... It is my opinion that a node works [much!] better if it doesn't have the inputBandwidthLimit set at 0, but at a realistic value. That is based on month long tests but only on my own (128Kbit) node. From the little I can pick up as to how cooperative bandwidth limiting might work it makes sense to me theoretically as well. Hmmm, that sounds rather strange, as I'm pretty sure the input limiter doesn't work... and ANY limiting will increase latencies significantly. Limiting output will normally have a knock-on effect on input, unless you are downloading lots of files locally... of course if you limit input to the same as output, you won't give away that fact so easily :). So if it was my node I'd have: inputBandwidthLimit=24000 outputBandwidthLimit=24000 (and if I was going away for a weekend or more I'd crank them both up to 48000 if no one else was using the bandwidth). I'm not highly motivated right now to update the Java environment. So far I haven't had observable environment errors. The security issues I'm aware of involve violations of the security sandbox - a moot point with freenet - and a JVM crash/Dos, which I'll deal with when I see crashes. If you're aware of something more serious, please tell. Nope. I'd agree with all your comments. What does FRED have to say for itself? http://127.0.0.1:/servlet/nodeinfo/networking/ocm Wow, lots of pretty graphs . The numbers at the top of the report: Very pretty. They don't mean much to me so I go for the Classic look of Connections, and More Details if I'm browsing. Connections open (Inbound/Outbound/Limit) 198 (132/66/200) Transfers active (Transmit/Receiving) 24 (13/11) Data waiting to be transferred1,285 Bytes Total amount of data transferred 4,483 MiB Perfect. That's exactly what I'd expect to see after say 2 days uptime? Yup. My personal experience (counts for very little) is that it took 9 days to become better connected - then suddenyl everything started working beautifully. Double plus thank you! I can wait a couple weeks. I saw the claim that freenet could be competetive with bittorrent, and was worried that I'd botched something It can be, for large popular files. Once they get started. If you use enough threads. OTOH, for smaller files, e.g. fproxy, latency is generally quite high. badly. I think I've been through about four of the FAQ pages, a couple of which have a subtextual hint that it may be quite a while before one's node is fully connected, but not much idea of the scale of quite a while. Setting expectations is important. Nine days is ridiculous. We must do something about it. :( Bittorrent rocks. But it will always max out my connection. Freenet easily outperformed Shareaza/Kazaa in my one test. BUT..a big BUT... this was a movie file that CofE mentioned (and linked to) in his flog as a file he downloaded as a test. I'm guessing there would be many people like me who also downloaded the file as a test. Which would mean that Freenet, if operating as designed, would replicate more and more of this data throughout the network (a reverse Slashdot effect). That would certainly be consistent with my observations. And just to expose my complete Freebieness (a freenet newbie and I've only recently picked up that term recently), I had always done my downloading through the built in FRED interface. Ok, nice for built in, but now I do all my (few) downloads through Fuqid. What a difference. Haven't looked at anything equivalent for Linux. Okay, what's the main advantage? Maybe we can improve the fproxy interface? My interest is websites that can never get slashdotted and can host large files while sharing the load, rather than file-sharing... Yeah, that would be cool, if it really worked, and if we had enough hosts to be able to worry about such things! -- 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]
