[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations

2004-07-15 Thread Garb

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. 

Regards,
J

___
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

2004-07-15 Thread Phillip Hutchings
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]

[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-14 Thread Wayne McDougall
Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:00:16AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote:
  fproxy will timeout and then I have to start again. And then it won't even
  grab the parts it previously downloaded successfully  So over a period of
  weeks my perception is that I eventually move all the requisite parts into
  my local stored, and then fproxy will download it instantly 
 
 What do you mean by TIMEOUT? Do we STILL get that bug? Or does it just
 fail?

I apologise for being sloppy in my use of terminology. 

fproxy seems to perform as I imagine it is designed to. That is it will fail
when it cannot retrieve sufficient blocks to make up a file.

What makes it possible to retrieve a file with FUQUID when it become
impossible with fproxy is 
a) once a block is retrieved with FUQUID it is permanently retained. If I
restart a fproxy retrieval it has to start again. And I have seen, after
restarting immediatly after a failure, failing to retrieve multiple blocks
I had previously retrieved. In fact sequential attempts to retrieve would
result in lower percentages of the file retrieved. And sometimes the 
intersection of common blocks would be quite low. Most disheartening.
b) As I have commented previously I often see a request not found now will be
found some x minutes later. So FUQUID, by continual retries over many hours can
eventually see all the blocks within retrievable range. Further I configure
FUQUID to try all blocks, even after it has passed the point of being unable to
build the whole file because I believe it will help bring those blocks into
range on the next past.

So as I said I have no expectation of changes in fproxy. I don't expect to
have fproxy try again and again hour after hour. And I don't expect it to
stroe away the blocks it has retrieved to date.

  So be encouraged. You're not just creating an anonymous slow file-sharer.
  You know and I know that Freenet is being used for good purposes now
  and I can see lots of potential for the future. 
 
 Is it? Very few.

Maybe few in number but great in worthiness. I think.

The problem with a privacy project is that many people will not choose to
disclose how they are using it for privacy. :-)

And we're still only on version 0.5. So be encouraged. Hmmm, better to go
cut you a cheque I guess

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'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.


___
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]

2004-07-14 Thread Toad
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]

[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-14 Thread Wayne McDougall
Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
 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.

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:

***
From: Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How much download?
Newsgroups: gmane.network.freenet.support
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 23:31:35 +0100

On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:21:17AM +1200, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
 Joachim Scharfetter wrote:
 
 Hi, I have got a fair use DSL account with limited download volume.
 How much download traffic will a permanent freenet node approximately
 cause?
 
 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.




___
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]

2004-07-14 Thread Toad
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]

2004-07-14 Thread Phillip Hutchings

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]

2004-07-13 Thread Nicholas Sturm
Toad wrote:
Is it? Very few.
 


___
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]
It sure is good to see honesty sneaking in -- not just PC.
___
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] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-12 Thread Wayne McDougall
Stephen P. Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 From: Wayne McDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   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
  
   Those suggested values are in bytes. You may want to adjust, but the 
default
   values would be too low.
  
 Thanks.  The comments in the freenet.conf file say that inputBandwidthLimit 
and
 outputBandwidthLimit are in units of bytes per second, not bits per second - 
is
 that incorrect?.

No, bytes per second is correct. Those figures are based on when you said
you had a 200Mbit (sic). Sadly for you your connection seems to have dropped
to 512Kb. :-) Sorry for taking you at your word. I'm used to envying other
people's bandwidth...

  I had inputBandwidthLimit at 0 (no limit), and
 outputBandwidthLimit at 2, since I believe my cable output is limited at
 512Kb(its)ps, corresponding to a theoretical maximum of 64KB(ytes)ps, and I
 wanted something left for other applications.  There's room for increase 
there,
 so I'll try that.  The mention in the comments that these were independent 
limits
 led me to infer that there was some some further overriding limit from which 
they were
 independent, but I'm going to revise my thinking to understand that they're 
simply
 independent of each other.

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 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.

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?

   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
 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.

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.

My interest is websites that can never get slashdotted and can host large
files while sharing the load, rather than file-sharing...


___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at 

Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations

2004-07-12 Thread Toad
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]

2004-07-12 Thread Toad
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]

[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-12 Thread Wayne McDougall
Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 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...

Ahh yes, well that's probably why we get questions like the original point.
I read voraciously, try to make sense of it all, and couple it with my
observations. But it's hard to get a definite answer or know if I'm just
observing noise

If you'd like me to do some comprehensive *tests* please feel free to ask.
But I'd gather that there are other priorities.

 My personal experience (counts for very little) is that it took 9 days 
to
 become better connected - then suddenyl everything started working
 beautifully.

 Nine days is ridiculous. We must do something about it. :(

It may well be better now, especially with these latest stable releases
which seem much improved, thank you Toad. Again, just holler if you ever
want some testing done.

 Okay, what's the main advantage? Maybe we can improve the fproxy
 interface?

Since you ask:

fproxy will timeout and then I have to start again. And then it won't even
grab the parts it previously downloaded successfully :-( So over a period of
weeks my perception is that I eventually move all the requisite parts into
my local stored, and then fproxy will download it instantly :-)

I certainly don't expect fproxy to be modified but perhaps one easy change
would be an outer loop so it just circles back and tries again. It's
probably just my low bandwidth, but I find that I will request something
(and this includes web pages) and it's not there, and then 5 minutes, 10
minutes, 20 minutes, 1 hour, 8 hours later it's there. 

My assumption has always been that my requests go out in an ever widening
circle off to where the data I want may be found, but my request timesout
before it gets back to me. Eventually (by dint of persistent requests) it
is lodged in local stores that I can reach before timing out.

  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!

Ahh, well I'm here for the long haulnot that I'm any use. :-(
I am a big fan of the privacy elements also.

So be encouraged. You're not just creating an anonymous slow file-sharer.
You know and I know that Freenet is being used for good purposes now
and I can see lots of potential for the future. 





___
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] Re: Freenet Expectations

2004-07-11 Thread Wayne McDougall
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

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

 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.

 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)!


___
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] Re: Freenet Expectations]

2004-07-11 Thread Stephen P. Schaefer
From: Wayne McDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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

 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
Thanks.  The comments in the freenet.conf file say that inputBandwidthLimit and
outputBandwidthLimit are in units of bytes per second, not bits per second - is
that incorrect?.  I had inputBandwidthLimit at 0 (no limit), and
outputBandwidthLimit at 2, since I believe my cable output is limited at
512Kb(its)ps, corresponding to a theoretical maximum of 64KB(ytes)ps, and I
wanted something left for other applications.  There's room for increase there,
so I'll try that.  The mention in the comments that these were independent limits
led me to infer that there was some some further overriding limit from which they were
independent, but I'm going to revise my thinking to understand that they're simply
independent of each other.
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.
 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:
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
 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
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.
___
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]