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.

Attachment: 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]

Reply via email to