Re: [freenet-support] Re: Traffic usage?
On Fri, 28 May 2004 18:39:14 -0400, Thomas Guyot-Sionnest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's either not that speed, or not DSL! ADSL is 1Mbit up, 8Mbit down; SDSL is a little faster for upload, but slower for download (up=down)... Even a dedicated T1 is not that fast, around 50Mbps! Wrong list for this discussion, I just want to point out that Japan Europe USA when it comes to tech. I'm on 8/1 ADSL - which in a few weeks time is going to be 13/13 or maybe 26/26 VDSL. I have no doubts that there is VDSL available in Japan that does at least 50Mbit/s. I _do_ however agree that the quoted 100/100 most probably is fiber/ethernet. We have that here too, it's quite common in flats you own yourself in the big cities. I'm in Sweden. If you want cool tech - move out of the US. (Flames won't be answered, this IS the wrong forum) ___/ _/ -- http://troed.se - controversial views or common sense? ___ 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: Traffic usage?
Woah. We have MUCH less bandwidth in the UK. :| On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 10:13:04AM +0200, Troed S?ngberg wrote: On Fri, 28 May 2004 18:39:14 -0400, Thomas Guyot-Sionnest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's either not that speed, or not DSL! ADSL is 1Mbit up, 8Mbit down; SDSL is a little faster for upload, but slower for download (up=down)... Even a dedicated T1 is not that fast, around 50Mbps! Wrong list for this discussion, I just want to point out that Japan Europe USA when it comes to tech. I'm on 8/1 ADSL - which in a few weeks time is going to be 13/13 or maybe 26/26 VDSL. I have no doubts that there is VDSL available in Japan that does at least 50Mbit/s. I _do_ however agree that the quoted 100/100 most probably is fiber/ethernet. We have that here too, it's quite common in flats you own yourself in the big cities. I'm in Sweden. If you want cool tech - move out of the US. (Flames won't be answered, this IS the wrong forum) ___/ _/ -- http://troed.se - controversial views or common sense? ___ 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] -- 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: Traffic usage?
That's either not that speed, or not DSL! ADSL is 1Mbit up, 8Mbit down; SDSL is a little faster for upload, but slower for download (up=down)... Even a dedicated T1 is not that fast, around 50Mbps! Thomas Guyot Dave wrote: You want to move to Japan instead. 100Mbits up, 100Mbits down DSL, for ~$70 a month. ___ 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] ___ 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: Traffic usage?
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:34:18AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:04:53AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: Not terribly well, because of high level bandwidth limiting. The node needs to know how much bandwidth is available to estimate how much is being used and therefore how many queries to allow. With respect this seems insufficiently good enough for the real world nature in which a node will run. People will want (I want) Freenet to notice that its share of bandwidth has been dropped and to react accordingly. How, exactly? We need to know what our target is in order to manage bandwidth usage effectively and especially in order to manage the number of trailer transfers and requests. Current messageSendTimeRequest seems a good measure of that. That is taken into account by rate limiting, and hence affects the number of queries accepted, and thus the bandwidth usage (in a similar way to high level bandwidth limiting). So I naively ask can't we mroe dynamically adjust bandwidth caps down when we see messageSendTimeRequest shoot up? Probably not...I suspect that would create a vicious circle. Ok but isn';t there some measure Freenet can use to notice it's getting choked and not to try and hog the connection? We already do, effectively. Ok I am for all intents and purposes and innocent newbie whose just been quitely running a node for two years, trying to share what bandwidth I can because I think the project is worthwhile and bandwidth (so I've read) is the greatest need. Hehe. Working software is probably the greatest need :). And certainly I've seen Freenet (when on a good enough build, which is usually the case) sucks up every last byte of my bandwidth and I like to think that that is being useful to someone somehow. I've assumed that if my 80 Gb datastore fills up at 1 Gb per day, and Freenet still routes to and through my meager 128/128 kbps line (even when I cap it lower) that, hey, maybe my node is useful or needed or something. Ouch. Dual ISDN is the cheapest broadband available in your area? That's horrible. :). And when I see something new on COFE and follow the link and find 10% of the data is already in my meagre 1.5 Gb store I think hey, it got there somehow. I'm impressed with how well it works. Much better lately, thank you Toad. And I'm amazed so many connections are to Sweden or Germany or such like. In fact I've ever only noticed one (brief) connection to a New Zealand node. I'm not sure what that all means, except that even on a (by world standards) a relatively low bandwidth node, Freenet is highly functional to me. Ah, you're in NZ. Hence the cr*p bandwidth. I'm rambling...my point is that I read and try to understand but I'm a newbie and may blather in my innocence...forgive my questionsand comments. I don't expect agreement. But I throw them out anyway. I watch (with envy) discussions on bandwidth and pricing and (sadly) I think the world is moving more to caps (monthly limits) rather than open. It certainly is in Oz and NZ. Indeed. And I notice the whining of people in the US when their providers move them on to similar capped plans. Maybe the competition is strong enough to mitigate that, but bandwidth ain't cheap and simple economics seems the way to stop the leeches. I see it as a growing trend. But that's just my view. Wish it would trend the other way. Bandwidth isn't THAT expensive. People who want bandwidth will switch ISPs in a healthy market. I have been tempted by some DSL deals but unless Cable starts imposing and enforcing bandwidth limitations, I'm sticking to my cable modem for now. If they do, I'll take my business elsewhere, even if it means a different phone telco. There is sadly no priority in it ATM. To help one user run a node in a wierd situation... hmm. I'll think about it. Absolutely. You set the priorities. I have no expectations that anything would be done about it. Mostly I have a questions, which I think is still unanswered: How will a node respond if one set of connections has a high bandwidth cap and another set of connections has a low bandwidth cap (assuming these caps are applied externally). Does the node give its average recommendation on retry intervals and load to ALL the connections? Will the high bandwidth connections figure out this is a good node to deal with, even if I'm sending out a retry interval based on averages. It will not understand it. Therefore it will not deal with it particularly well.. Put another way: does freenet assume all my outgoing and incoming connections have equal bandwidth throughput? Does that affect routing in a suboptimal way? Unless they are LAN or local or reserved IPs, they are throttled in a similar manner and accounted for as one unit for high level bandwidth limiting. We COULD have multiple low level limiters, but it'd be a PITA to implement,
Re: [freenet-support] Re: Traffic usage?
[snip] 1. My experience is that I can get a limit of 5 Gb of *international* traffic a month (170 Mb a day) with Node bandwidth limits of Overall 0 Output 750 Input 0 Yup, a limit of 750 bytes per second. I need to experiment more with the Overall setting. Freenet is the single most effective utility I have found for consuming bandwidth. Better than BitTorrent. When the bandwidth level drops this low I get a lot of what I characterise as churn. The messageSendTimeRequest shoots up - I guess because messages can't get out fast enough through the small output channel. So then my node rejects incoming connections, but it's still sending outgoing requests (albeit slowly) so I'm rejecting these replies to my requests because my messageSendTimeRequest is so high. I suspect a lot of things get retried. I suspect my efficiency is low. But it works, and keeps me in the bandwidth cap. Yeah, that's what I get when I turn it down really low. Not really surprising, maybe freenet should adjust its priorities on a low bandwidth connection or something, but I don't know the internals yet 2. I really suspect that more serious bandwidth limiting should be done at an operating system (router) level rather than at the Freenet level. I suspect that's what you'll be told around here. That way you can also take account of things happening other than your node. :-) So I've been working towards a Linux traffic shaper that gives sets no limits on traffic with domestic IP addresses and limits international traffic so the total monthly limit hits 5 Gb (my cap). Yeah, I'm looking at it, but there's no decent way to detect freenet packets. I was looking at patching the source so you could specify the source port range for outgoing connections. If you specified 10 ports or so and freenet bound them on startup so they were captured then, and used iptables to MARK the packets you could do some really decent limiting. 3. What I don't know is how my Freenet node will respond when some (domestic) IPs get a high bandwidth (8,000 k/s) and other (international) IPs get a low bandwidth (0.75 k/s). I guess my node will always give a constant recommendation for how much traffic it wants, and this will oscillate wildly according to how many domestic versus international nodes are connecting. I'm *hoping* domestic nodes will learn that it is worthwhile connecting to me, but they may be put off by the average they get. I don't know. Someday when Toad is bored maybe he could put his fine mind to at least thinking about the impacts of this bandwidth disparity and how a node configuration could be set to handle this. It may be that this scenario ( maix of low and high bandwidth channels into a node) is relatively uncommon worldwide, and isn't worth coding for, but I wonder how common it is, and whether it may become more common. Comments welcome. Domestically I am willing to give up to 5k/sec out and 15k/sec in (due to my connection speeds), internationally I would go lower but monitor the usage. I'd like to cut off after ~100MB/day. I know this is sub-optimal for freenet, but with caps that's the reality. One thing that I can think of is limiting the size of incoming files not requested by the node directly - stop splitfiles and things going through. I'm more interested in the information, not movies, but I can't think of a tidy way to implement this in a few minutes. I know it's not really in line with the freenet ideal, and also it could compromise privacy, but it's a thought. -- 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: Traffic usage?
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:05:42AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What would be nice (in lieu of being able to prefer certain IP ranges - I get local traffic far cheaper) would be a way to limit monthly transfer, eg set it so the node can use 5GB/month, and it'll aim for a daily transfer of about 170MB, but will go over if it needs to. I guess this would also mean that the size of incoming files would need to be limited. Unfortunately I can't try to hack this myself just yet, but I have some free time coming up, so I might look at it then, see if I can find where to do the limiting. I knew Java knowledge would come in handy :P So for now my node is offline. I've lowered my rate limiting to 500 bytes/sec to keep things under control, but I'm waiting for my ISPs traffic information to come back online... Toad: feel free to comment on point 3: Phillip, since we're in the same country with similar issues, I'd like to share my thoughts and see where we can go with this. Feel free to email me directly. 1. My experience is that I can get a limit of 5 Gb of *international* traffic a month (170 Mb a day) with Node bandwidth limits of Overall 0 Output 750 Input 0 Yup, a limit of 750 bytes per second. I need to experiment more with the Overall setting. Freenet is the single most effective utility I have found for consuming bandwidth. Better than BitTorrent. When the bandwidth level drops this low I get a lot of what I characterise as churn. The messageSendTimeRequest shoots up - I guess because messages can't get out fast enough through the small output channel. So then my node rejects incoming connections, but it's still sending outgoing requests (albeit slowly) so I'm rejecting these replies to my requests because my messageSendTimeRequest is so high. I suspect a lot of things get retried. I suspect my efficiency is low. But it works, and keeps me in the bandwidth cap. 2. I really suspect that more serious bandwidth limiting should be done at an operating system (router) level rather than at the Freenet level. I suspect that's what you'll be told around here. That way you can also take account of things happening other than your node. :-) Perhaps. That would also lead to high message send times though. Freenet needs to know what the limit is even if you use external limiting. So I've been working towards a Linux traffic shaper that gives sets no limits on traffic with domestic IP addresses and limits international traffic so the total monthly limit hits 5 Gb (my cap). HOW do you determine what is local? Freenet could maybe support this. 3. What I don't know is how my Freenet node will respond when some (domestic) IPs get a high bandwidth (8,000 k/s) and other (international) IPs get a low bandwidth (0.75 k/s). I guess my node will always give a constant recommendation for how much traffic it wants, and this will oscillate wildly according to how many domestic versus international nodes are connecting. I'm *hoping* domestic nodes will learn that it is worthwhile connecting to me, but they may be put off by the average they get. I don't know. Someday when Toad is bored maybe he could put his fine mind to at least thinking about the impacts of this bandwidth disparity and how a node configuration could be set to handle this. It may be that this scenario ( maix of low and high bandwidth channels into a node) is relatively uncommon worldwide, and isn't worth coding for, but I wonder how common it is, and whether it may become more common. Are you in Spain by any chance? The last poster on this topic was.. Comments welcome. -- 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: Traffic usage?
Have you tried averageOutputLimit ? Does it work? On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:25:33PM +1200, Phillip Hutchings wrote: [snip] 1. My experience is that I can get a limit of 5 Gb of *international* traffic a month (170 Mb a day) with Node bandwidth limits of Overall 0 Output 750 Input 0 Yup, a limit of 750 bytes per second. I need to experiment more with the Overall setting. Freenet is the single most effective utility I have found for consuming bandwidth. Better than BitTorrent. When the bandwidth level drops this low I get a lot of what I characterise as churn. The messageSendTimeRequest shoots up - I guess because messages can't get out fast enough through the small output channel. So then my node rejects incoming connections, but it's still sending outgoing requests (albeit slowly) so I'm rejecting these replies to my requests because my messageSendTimeRequest is so high. I suspect a lot of things get retried. I suspect my efficiency is low. But it works, and keeps me in the bandwidth cap. Yeah, that's what I get when I turn it down really low. Not really surprising, maybe freenet should adjust its priorities on a low bandwidth connection or something, but I don't know the internals yet 2. I really suspect that more serious bandwidth limiting should be done at an operating system (router) level rather than at the Freenet level. I suspect that's what you'll be told around here. That way you can also take account of things happening other than your node. :-) So I've been working towards a Linux traffic shaper that gives sets no limits on traffic with domestic IP addresses and limits international traffic so the total monthly limit hits 5 Gb (my cap). Yeah, I'm looking at it, but there's no decent way to detect freenet packets. That's a feature :). I was looking at patching the source so you could specify the source port range for outgoing connections. If you specified 10 ports or so and freenet bound them on startup so they were captured then, and used iptables to MARK the packets you could do some really decent limiting. 3. What I don't know is how my Freenet node will respond when some (domestic) IPs get a high bandwidth (8,000 k/s) and other (international) IPs get a low bandwidth (0.75 k/s). I guess my node will always give a constant recommendation for how much traffic it wants, and this will oscillate wildly according to how many domestic versus international nodes are connecting. I'm *hoping* domestic nodes will learn that it is worthwhile connecting to me, but they may be put off by the average they get. I don't know. Someday when Toad is bored maybe he could put his fine mind to at least thinking about the impacts of this bandwidth disparity and how a node configuration could be set to handle this. It may be that this scenario ( maix of low and high bandwidth channels into a node) is relatively uncommon worldwide, and isn't worth coding for, but I wonder how common it is, and whether it may become more common. Comments welcome. Domestically I am willing to give up to 5k/sec out and 15k/sec in (due to my connection speeds), internationally I would go lower but monitor the usage. I'd like to cut off after ~100MB/day. I know this is sub-optimal for freenet, but with caps that's the reality. Have you tried averageOutputBandwidth (in the config file)? One thing that I can think of is limiting the size of incoming files not requested by the node directly - stop splitfiles and things going through. I'm more interested in the information, not movies, but I can't think of a tidy way to implement this in a few minutes. I know it's not really in line with the freenet ideal, and also it could compromise privacy, but it's a thought. Well, if it was widely supported, it would just result in moviez being split into smaller chunks... -- 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: Traffic usage?
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:32:50AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One thing that I can think of is limiting the size of incoming files not requested by the node directly - stop splitfiles and things going through. I'm more interested in the information, not movies, but I can't think of a tidy way to implement this in a few minutes. I know it's not really in line with the freenet ideal, and also it could compromise privacy, but it's a thought. So you not only don't want to store large files in your data store - you don't want to relay them either? It should be easy enough to stop such files being stored in your data store - according to freenet.ini it doesn't store files larger than 1/100th of the size of your datastore, in your datastore. That 1/100 calculation would be easy to find and tweak so you don't store files of 1 Mb (and these days all the large files I see are in chunks of 1,026 Kb). The question is whether you can identify whether incoming data is part of an incoming 1 Mb message bfore you accept it. My guess, only a guess, is yes. This is true. I would think that information as opposed to files would normally be under 1 Mb. ZIP manifest freesites, the Diebold files, even some informative videos... For my part I'd like to contribute as much bandwidth to Freenet as a whole, but when in a capped triage situation I certainly understand wanting to prioritise traffic. NGR will take into account your transfer rate when deciding whether to route a request to you. Hopefully you'd get fewer requests for big files... -- 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: Traffic usage?
Toad wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:05:42AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: So I've been working towards a Linux traffic shaper that gives sets no limits on traffic with domestic IP addresses and limits international traffic so the total monthly limit hits 5 Gb (my cap). HOW do you determine what is local? Freenet could maybe support this. Isn't NGRouting supposed to detect this? If international traffic is capped and domestic traffic is not, shouldn't domestic nodes appear to be much faster and thus favored over nodes which are located abroad? -- Mika Hirvonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nightwatch.mine.nu/ ___ 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: Traffic usage?
Toad wrote: 2. I really suspect that more serious bandwidth limiting should be done at an operating system (router) level rather than at the Freenet level. I suspect that's what you'll be told around here. That way you can also take account of things happening other than your node. :-) Perhaps. That would also lead to high message send times though. Freenet needs to know what the limit is even if you use external limiting. Is message send time a problem? I mean, AFAIK freenet is able to recognize links with higher latency and use them as little as possible, thus reducing the outbound traffic over those links in favour of local (=not-so-limited) nodes. The other two possibilities, namely lower bandwidth for all and an add-on to fred, look uninviting: the first because it's just sub-optimal, the second because both it requires much work on fred (to implement the different bandwidth levels and to test them -- how many nodes would benefit from that?) and, for those who need the feature, does not significantly reduce the amount of configuration work (compared to a QOS system). Please correct me if I'm wrong! :) Greetings -- /~\ The ASCIITLD \ / Ribbon Campaign They that can give up essential liberty to obtain X Against HTMLa little temporary safety deserve neither liberty / \ Email! nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin ___ 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: Traffic usage?
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:42:28PM +0300, Mika Hirvonen wrote: Toad wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:05:42AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: So I've been working towards a Linux traffic shaper that gives sets no limits on traffic with domestic IP addresses and limits international traffic so the total monthly limit hits 5 Gb (my cap). HOW do you determine what is local? Freenet could maybe support this. Isn't NGRouting supposed to detect this? If international traffic is capped and domestic traffic is not, shouldn't domestic nodes appear to be much faster and thus favored over nodes which are located abroad? Only if they are equally effective in terms of probability of success etc... -- 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: Traffic usage?
On 24/05/2004, at 11:32 PM, Wayne McDougall wrote: Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One thing that I can think of is limiting the size of incoming files not requested by the node directly - stop splitfiles and things going through. I'm more interested in the information, not movies, but I can't think of a tidy way to implement this in a few minutes. I know it's not really in line with the freenet ideal, and also it could compromise privacy, but it's a thought. So you not only don't want to store large files in your data store - you don't want to relay them either? It should be easy enough to stop such files being stored in your data store - according to freenet.ini it doesn't store files larger than 1/100th of the size of your datastore, in your datastore. That 1/100 calculation would be easy to find and tweak so you don't store files of 1 Mb (and these days all the large files I see are in chunks of 1,026 Kb). The question is whether you can identify whether incoming data is part of an incoming 1 Mb message bfore you accept it. My guess, only a guess, is yes. I would think that information as opposed to files would normally be under 1 Mb. For my part I'd like to contribute as much bandwidth to Freenet as a whole, but when in a capped triage situation I certainly understand wanting to prioritise traffic. I don't care about storing things on my node - I have a 4GB store - but I do care about the traffic used by them. When freenet uses over 1/10th of my monthly cap in a day it gets shut down. Personally, I've only seen movies bigger than 1MB, most text pages are 20-400KB (TFE's index page was ~400KB last time I looked). -- 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: Traffic usage?
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:25:33PM +1200, Phillip Hutchings wrote: [bigger snip] Yeah, I'm looking at it, but there's no decent way to detect freenet packets. That's a feature :). Yeah, even on localhost :P IPTABLE's OWNER match target only works in the OUTPUT chain. I can't monitor something coming in, but that's an IPTABLES problem :P I was looking at patching the source so you could specify the source port range for outgoing connections. If you specified 10 ports or so and freenet bound them on startup so they were captured then, and used iptables to MARK the packets you could do some really decent limiting. [snip] Domestically I am willing to give up to 5k/sec out and 15k/sec in (due to my connection speeds), internationally I would go lower but monitor the usage. I'd like to cut off after ~100MB/day. I know this is sub-optimal for freenet, but with caps that's the reality. Have you tried averageOutputBandwidth (in the config file)? I think that's what I have on now, but until my ISPs metering catches up with what I've used I won't be testing. Should be on tomorrow though, I'll report what happens. One thing that I can think of is limiting the size of incoming files not requested by the node directly - stop splitfiles and things going through. I'm more interested in the information, not movies, but I can't think of a tidy way to implement this in a few minutes. I know it's not really in line with the freenet ideal, and also it could compromise privacy, but it's a thought. Well, if it was widely supported, it would just result in moviez being split into smaller chunks... Yeah, I guess so. -- 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: Traffic usage?
On 25/05/2004, at 5:27 AM, Toad wrote: [snip] 2. I really suspect that more serious bandwidth limiting should be done at an operating system (router) level rather than at the Freenet level. I suspect that's what you'll be told around here. That way you can also take account of things happening other than your node. :-) Perhaps. That would also lead to high message send times though. Freenet needs to know what the limit is even if you use external limiting. I use iptables for monitoring, but not limiting... So I've been working towards a Linux traffic shaper that gives sets no limits on traffic with domestic IP addresses and limits international traffic so the total monthly limit hits 5 Gb (my cap). HOW do you determine what is local? Freenet could maybe support this. IP range. The ISP just has one 'local' port on their routers that goes to the domestic peers and an 'international' which goes to everyone else. I'm pretty sure I could get their tech support to give me the blocks. 3. What I don't know is how my Freenet node will respond when some (domestic) IPs get a high bandwidth (8,000 k/s) and other (international) IPs get a low bandwidth (0.75 k/s). I guess my node will always give a constant recommendation for how much traffic it wants, and this will oscillate wildly according to how many domestic versus international nodes are connecting. I'm *hoping* domestic nodes will learn that it is worthwhile connecting to me, but they may be put off by the average they get. I don't know. Someday when Toad is bored maybe he could put his fine mind to at least thinking about the impacts of this bandwidth disparity and how a node configuration could be set to handle this. It may be that this scenario ( maix of low and high bandwidth channels into a node) is relatively uncommon worldwide, and isn't worth coding for, but I wonder how common it is, and whether it may become more common. Are you in Spain by any chance? The last poster on this topic was.. Nope, New Zealand, but because we only have two telcos, and one of them only operates two small areas, we have monopoly problems :/ Maybe if I can get funds up and push for NZWired to get working... -- 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]
