Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations
On 16/07/2004, at 7:52 AM, Garb wrote: Message: 3 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:54:35 + (UTC) From: Wayne McDougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ...The government in New Zealand has decided that 256/256 is the highest broadband speed that our telecom monomoply needs to make available to competitors. :-( ...128/128 is the fastest connection available domestically without a monthly bandwidth cap... Wow Wayne! What a nightmarish situation. Bandwidth capping? 128/128? You guys need to do some serious political work in order to get rid of that monopoly. We had a similar situation here (Denmark), but luckily the telecom monopoly was removed in the mid nineties before the internet took off for real. Btw. cant you get internet feed from cable- and/or electricity-companies as well? That would create some competition. There is no legal monopoly in New Zealand. The marketplace is completely deregulated. There are no legal entry barriers to the market place and very few barriers to become a network operator (benefits like compulsory land access, instant fines for cable breakage...). The monopoly is because of the population distribution - nobody other than Telecom is willing to have wires to most of the population, it costs a lot for little return. The only reason Telecom will put up with it is because the wires were put in place by the government. That said, there's a group of students (including myself ;) at Victoria University who're planning to roll out a large scale IP network based on Cat-5e cable and Power over Ethernet. We've already solved most of the problems ;) Visit http://www.nzwired.net/ if you're interested. The company will be non-profit. -- Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sitharus.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations
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]
Different views on what's realistic? Will Freenet just be a US or bandwidth rich countries project? The government in New Zealand has decided that 256/256 is the highest broadband speed that our telecom monomoply needs to make available to competitors. :-( 128/128 is the fastest connection available domestically without a monthly bandwidth cap that Freenet would blow out of the water in 5 days. There aren't any business level connections that wouldn't be prohibitively expensive. Which leaves academia (and even per department most would frown on Freenet). Ok I appreciate we're just in a sucky part of the world. I get the impression others are too. But when I read: [snip] I'm amazed that the above still works... *** and you're amazed that 256/128 works (if I'm reading it correctly) then that leaves me out of the cold, and you're suggesting bandwidth needs to be at least 1024/256 for you to expect Freenet to work. Freenet works fine on 256/128, but it chews through bandwidth. What I was thinking of doing was getting a server in a US on a fairly decent connection and running a Freenet node on that. People would be able to get secure tunnels in to the server to the FCP port (and maybe Fred - but I'd prefer FCP only). At the moment I'm looking at a ValueWeb offering - US$65/month in the config I want (some friends also want shells on the box - it'll be running UML). The only problem I have is money. Oh, and RAM - it won't have free reign over the box. 128MB max, closer to 50MB in reality - not ideal. If only Java worked in less RAM, or Freenet worked with less data transfer. I can only allow ~1GB/Month on my connection. Roll on NZWired (nzwired.net) -- Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sitharus.com/ ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]
On 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]
[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]
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 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. No, we should fix the bug. > > 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. Is it? Very few. -- 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]
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]
Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:10:01AM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: > There's lots of cool stuff with averaging limits, and immediate limits, > and gradual adjustment. Together with incoming being not directly under > control. It works very well for those of us with monthly bandwidth caps. It does?! I thought the average limiter didn't work... > > It is my opinion that a node works [much!] better if it doesn't have the > inputBandwidthLimit set at 0, but at a realistic value. That is based on > month long tests but only on my own (128Kbit) node. From the little I can > pick up as to how cooperative bandwidth limiting might work it makes sense > to me theoretically as well. Hmmm, that sounds rather strange, as I'm pretty sure the input limiter doesn't work... and ANY limiting will increase latencies significantly. Limiting output will normally have a knock-on effect on input, unless you are downloading lots of files locally... of course if you limit input to the same as output, you won't give away that fact so easily :). > > So if it was my node I'd have: > inputBandwidthLimit=24000 > outputBandwidthLimit=24000 > > (and if I was going away for a weekend or more I'd crank them both up to > 48000 if no one else was using the bandwidth). > > > I'm not highly motivated right now to update the Java environment. So far > I haven't > > had observable environment errors. The security issues I'm aware of involve > > violations of the security sandbox - a moot point with freenet - and a JVM > crash/Dos, > > which I'll deal with when I see crashes. If you're aware of something more > serious, > > please tell. > > Nope. I'd agree with all your comments. > > > > What does FRED have to say for itself? > > > > > > http://127.0.0.1:/servlet/nodeinfo/networking/ocm > > > > Wow, lots of pretty graphs . The numbers at the top of the report: > > Very pretty. They don't mean much to me so I go for the "Classic" look > of Connections, and More Details if I'm browsing. > > > Connections open (Inbound/Outbound/Limit) 198 (132/66/200) > > Transfers active (Transmit/Receiving) 24 (13/11) > > Data waiting to be transferred1,285 Bytes > > Total amount of data transferred 4,483 MiB > > Perfect. That's exactly what I'd expect to see after say 2 days uptime? Yup. > > > > My personal experience (counts for very little) is that it took 9 days to > > > become better connected - then suddenyl everything started working > > > beautifully. > > > > Double plus thank you! I can wait a couple weeks. I saw the claim that > freenet > > could be competetive with bittorrent, and was worried that I'd botched > something It can be, for large popular files. Once they get started. If you use enough threads. OTOH, for smaller files, e.g. fproxy, latency is generally quite high. > > badly. I think I've been through about four of the FAQ pages, a couple of > which > > have a subtextual hint that it may be quite a while before one's node is > fully > > connected, but not much idea of the scale of "quite a while". Setting > expectations > > is important. Nine days is ridiculous. We must do something about it. :( > > Bittorrent rocks. But it will always max out my connection. > Freenet easily outperformed Shareaza/Kazaa in my one test. BUT..a big BUT... > this was a movie file that CofE mentioned (and linked to) in his flog as > a file he downloaded as a test. I'm guessing there would be many people > like me who also downloaded the file as a test. Which would mean that Freenet, > if operating as designed, would replicate more and more of this data > throughout the network (a reverse Slashdot effect). That would certainly be > consistent with my observations. > > And just to expose my complete Freebieness (a freenet newbie and I've only > recently picked up that term recently), I had always done my downloading > through the built in FRED interface. Ok, nice for built in, but now I do all > my (few) downloads through Fuqid. What a difference. Haven't looked at > anything equivalent for Linux. Okay, what's the main advantage? Maybe we can improve the fproxy interface? > > My interest is websites that can never get slashdotted and can host large > files while sharing the load, rather than file-sharing... Yeah, that would be cool, if it really worked, and if we had enough hosts to be able to worry about such things! -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:20:23PM +, Wayne McDougall wrote: > Stephen P. Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I started a freenet node four days ago, using the default freenet.conf > > settings, adjusted for being behind a firewall. A couple days later I > > increased the storage to 1G, which required restarting fred. A couple > > days after that I increased the storage to 30G, again restarting fred. > > I'm using the latest stable with Sun JDK 1.4.1 on RH8.0 and an approx. > > 200Mbitps cable modem. > > I *think* that freenet.conf is set by default to assume as 256Kbits connection > (based on a rule of thumb of setting limits to half bandwidth capacity). > > You would want to adjust: > > inputBandwidthLimit=1250 > and > outputBandwidthLimit=1250 LOL. There is no way he has a 200 megabit cable modem. Such things don't exist... > > Those suggested values are in bytes. You may want to adjust, but the default > values would be too low. > > I'm no expert, but I'd strongly urge you to consider the 1.4.2 Java release: > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/download.html Get 1.4.2-05 if you do. 04 had some serious problems.. > > > It's working, kindof. netstat -t -a shows lots of incoming connections > > to the public port. > > What does FRED have to say for itself? > > http://127.0.0.1:/servlet/nodeinfo/networking/ocm > > Have you got active transmitting inbound and outbound connections? > > > I'm disappointed that the latency on more that half > > my retrievals has been in hours; some requests are going into their > > second day. I've had one retrieval succeed after 16 hours. Someone > [SNIP] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/YoYo// > > Data Not found > > > > Is this what I should expect? Will it get better over time as I become > > better connected? > > No it's not what you should expect, and yes it will get better. > My personal experience (counts for very little) is that it took 9 days to > become better connected - then suddenyl everything started working > beautifully. You may do better than that with better bandwidth and the > improved Freenet versions. But I'd wait at least that long to see how good > things might be. NINE DAYS?! Yikes. > > > I'm seeing no inordinate load on my machine (Linux); > > top says the CPU stays between 80 and 90% idle. After two days, only 2G > > of the 30G I most recently allocated has been consumed. > > Only 2 Gb would be filled over two days at the default bandwidth rate of > 12 000 (versus my suggestion of 12 500 000)! -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]
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
[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations]
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]
[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Expectations
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]
