Re: [freenet-support] new stable(part 2)
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 10:12:44AM +0200, Newsbyte wrote: > Connections open (Inbound/Outbound/Limit) 6 (0/6/200) This is the problem. This is caused by a bug I am going to fix. Which affects both branches, and causes connections to fail. -- 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] new stable(part 2)
Ok...despite Ian telling me to f- read what toad wrote, what I feared would happen has happend: whether or not I let it run longer, it's still the same. Basically, it's still crap. On the contrary, it seems to get worse the longer I let it on. In the very beginnings, it worked (more or less), but then it went steadily worse, untill nothing was retrievable. After some discussions (and the well-thought of responses on the maillist ;-) ) someone on IIP suggested to update my seednodes.ref. So I did. And indeed, when restarting things seemed to have improved. I thought the seednodes didn't update when using the auto-update, but toad assured me they would/should. And I guess he might be right, because after a while it deteriorated again, untill it was as crappy as before. And that is really crappy: my statusbar is around 1-2% and stays there, no activelinks show up at all, etc. Now, I AM using a router and what not, but it never deteriorated like this before, and build 5085 is supposed to work *better* with routers, right? So, I have basically no idea what is going on (neither do the coders, I suspect ;-)), but I'm pretty sure it's not due to being not well-connected to the network in the normal sense and that it will improve with time. I would send some data on it, if I knew what exactly would be interesting to know. (openconnections?) Connections open (Inbound/Outbound/Limit) 6 (0/6/200) Transfers active (Transmitting/Receiving) 1 (0/1) Data waiting to be transmitted/received None/None Amount of data transmitted/received over currently open connections 2,219 KiB/3,740 KiB Total amount of data transmitted/received 24 MiB/27 MiB Number of distinct nodes connected 6 After a whole night, 24MB seems rather puny. - Original Message - From: Newsbyte To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 11:31 AM Subject: new stable Tried it out, and thusfar...it's crap. Maybe (hope so) this is temporary, but it definately works WAY worse then it used to. Actually, I almost don't get anything exept RNF, DNF and other 'can't connect' messages. I know it's maybe too early to tell, but what if all the changes didn't do a thing (again) to improve Freenet? I mean...we could be busy untill men land on mars and Bush becomes a saint (I would've said an intelligent dude, but I want to keep it remotely possible). If things don't work, and don't keep working, maybe we should make a dramatic departure and throw away the concept of NGR and the current bw/limiting shemes? Maybe we just made it too complicated, and we should revert or at least think about moving it to something more simple again, akin to the classical routing? Also, IMHO, one might implement something that makes a node more keen on (more) rapidly using other nodes it gets aware of, even if they seem - or are - 'less good' then the seednodes. I think the seednodes.ref causes rather an all-to-long-remaining bottleneck when contacting the network. Maybe it will get (preferable much) better, and I truelly hope so, but if it doesn't it has been yet another giant waste of time. I mean, I'm sure there are lots of improvements, but if endusers don't see the difference and still get a crappy working network, it's rather pointless. Maybe I'm just talking in a mood of dissapointment, but, even as a fan of Freenet (or I wouldn't do what I'm doing), I'm getting rather tired of all those months and even years of 'improvements' that just don't seem to materialise into a better, faster Freenet. I've expressed my opinion before: I think the only chance of actually getting somewhere, is by creating a large, 'real-life' testnetwork where the actual workings can be followed in detail. Toads' little network already showed some promise, but falls far short of what is needed. I can't but feel that, if we had done that a year before, we would now be much further in the development and with a good chance of having a working Freenet. ___ 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] new stable
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [freenet-support] new stable > Quoting Newsbyte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Tried it out, and thusfar...it's crap. > > This is perhaps inappropriate for the support mailing list? > Well, at least Matt can't say he's not getting honest feedback. Seriously, everyone here wants it to work and is pulling for it to work. Every time we download a new release, we hope this will be the one and all the content will zip to our machines with lightening speed. A little disappointment is therefore understandable. -vinyl1 ___ 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] new stable
Quoting Newsbyte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Tried it out, and thusfar...it's crap. This is perhaps inappropriate for the support mailing list? -todd ___ 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] new stable
Tried it out, and thusfar...it's crap. Maybe (hope so) this is temporary, but it definately works WAY worse then it used to. Actually, I almost don't get anything exept RNF, DNF and other 'can't connect' messages. I know it's maybe too early to tell, but what if all the changes didn't do a thing (again) to improve Freenet? I mean...we could be busy untill men land on mars and Bush becomes a saint (I would've said an intelligent dude, but I want to keep it remotely possible). If things don't work, and don't keep working, maybe we should make a dramatic departure and throw away the concept of NGR and the current bw/limiting shemes? Maybe we just made it too complicated, and we should revert or at least think about moving it to something more simple again, akin to the classical routing? Also, IMHO, one might implement something that makes a node more keen on (more) rapidly using other nodes it gets aware of, even if they seem - or are - 'less good' then the seednodes. I think the seednodes.ref causes rather an all-to-long-remaining bottleneck when contacting the network. Maybe it will get (preferable much) better, and I truelly hope so, but if it doesn't it has been yet another giant waste of time. I mean, I'm sure there are lots of improvements, but if endusers don't see the difference and still get a crappy working network, it's rather pointless. Maybe I'm just talking in a mood of dissapointment, but, even as a fan of Freenet (or I wouldn't do what I'm doing), I'm getting rather tired of all those months and even years of 'improvements' that just don't seem to materialise into a better, faster Freenet. I've expressed my opinion before: I think the only chance of actually getting somewhere, is by creating a large, 'real-life' testnetwork where the actual workings can be followed in detail. Toads' little network already showed some promise, but falls far short of what is needed. I can't but feel that, if we had done that a year before, we would now be much further in the development and with a good chance of having a working Freenet. ___ 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]
