Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
On 29 Jan 2004 at 10:13, Maximilian Mehnert wrote: > If I had a second life I would help redoing the whole thing in ocaml... Gezundheit! ___ 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
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]
RE: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064
> -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]
Re: [freenet-support] Way to much RAM! Build 5064
> 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
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]
