On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:34:18AM +0000, Wayne McDougall wrote:
> Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:04:53AM +0000, Wayne McDougall wrote:
> > Not terribly well, because of high level bandwidth limiting. The node
> > needs to know how much bandwidth is available to estimate how much is
> > being used and therefore how many queries to allow.
> With respect this seems insufficiently good enough for the real world
> nature in which a node will run. People will want (I want) Freenet to
> notice that its share of bandwidth has been dropped and to react accordingly.

How, exactly? We need to know what our target is in order to manage
bandwidth usage effectively and especially in order to manage the number
of trailer transfers and requests.
> Current messageSendTimeRequest seems a good measure of that.

That is taken into account by rate limiting, and hence affects the
number of queries accepted, and thus the bandwidth usage (in a similar
way to high level bandwidth limiting).
> So I naively ask can't we mroe dynamically adjust bandwidth caps down when we
> see messageSendTimeRequest shoot up? Probably not...I suspect that would create
> a vicious circle. Ok but isn';t there some measure Freenet can use to notice
> it's getting choked and not to try and hog the connection?

We already do, effectively.
> Ok I am for all intents and purposes and innocent newbie whose just been
> quitely running a node for two years, trying to share what bandwidth I can
> because I think the project is worthwhile and bandwidth (so I've read)
> is the greatest need. 

Hehe. Working software is probably the greatest need :).
> And certainly I've seen Freenet (when on a good enough build, which is usually
> the case) sucks up every last byte of my bandwidth and I like to think that
> that is being useful to someone somehow. I've assumed that if my 80 Gb
> datastore fills up at 1 Gb per day, and Freenet still routes to and through
> my meager 128/128 kbps line (even when I cap it lower) that, hey, maybe my 
> node is useful or needed or something.

Ouch. Dual ISDN is the cheapest broadband available in your area? That's
horrible. :).
> And when I see something new on COFE and follow the link and find 10% of the
> data is already in my meagre 1.5 Gb store I think hey, it got there somehow.
> I'm impressed with how well it works. Much better lately, thank you Toad.
> And I'm amazed so many connections are to Sweden or Germany or such like. In
> fact I've ever only noticed one (brief) connection to a New Zealand node. 
> I'm not sure what that all means, except that even on a (by world standards)
> a relatively low bandwidth node, Freenet is highly functional to me.

Ah, you're in NZ. Hence the cr*p bandwidth.
> I'm rambling...my point is that I read and try to understand but I'm a 
> newbie and may blather in my innocence...forgive my questions....and
> comments. I don't expect agreement. But I throw them out anyway.
> > > I watch (with envy) discussions on bandwidth and pricing and (sadly) I
> > > think the world is moving more to caps (monthly limits) rather than open.
> > 
> > It certainly is in Oz and NZ.
> Indeed. And I notice the whining of people in the US when their providers move
> them on to similar capped plans. Maybe the competition is strong enough to
> mitigate that, but bandwidth ain't cheap and simple economics seems the way
> to stop the leeches. I see it as a growing trend. But that's just my view.
> Wish it would trend the other way.

Bandwidth isn't THAT expensive. People who want bandwidth will switch
ISPs in a healthy market. I have been tempted by some DSL deals but
unless Cable starts imposing and enforcing bandwidth limitations, I'm
sticking to my cable modem for now. If they do, I'll take my business
elsewhere, even if it means a different phone telco.
> > There is sadly no priority in it ATM. To help one user run a node in a
> > wierd situation... hmm. I'll think about it.
> Absolutely. You set the priorities. I have no expectations that anything 
> would be done about it. Mostly I have a questions, which I think is still
> unanswered:
> How will a node respond if one set of connections has a high bandwidth cap
> and another set of connections has a low bandwidth cap (assuming these caps
> are applied externally). Does the node give its average recommendation on
> retry intervals and load to ALL the connections? Will the high bandwidth
> connections figure out this is a good node to deal with, even if I'm sending
> out a retry interval based on averages.

It will not understand it. Therefore it will not deal with it
particularly well..
> Put another way: does freenet assume all my outgoing and incoming connections
> have equal bandwidth throughput? Does that affect routing in a suboptimal
> way?

Unless they are LAN or local or reserved IPs, they are throttled in a
similar manner and accounted for as one unit for high level bandwidth
limiting. We COULD have multiple low level limiters, but it'd be a PITA
to implement, would only affect a few users at present, and so is a low
> Depending on your answers I may have other questions such as "should I run
> two nodes - one for high bandwidth only and one for low bandwidth? Blocking
> connections from the wrong connection set? Or just what should I think of
> doing in these cases?"

Hmmm. I don't expect that will be very usable...
> Finally I'll just politely take issue with "one user" in a "weird situation".
> I don't think the situation is as weird as you might think. And it ain't 
> just one user. I appreciate that it still won't be enough to be a priority.
> I didn't expect that. But it may be as you work on infrastructure and future
> changes you may give a little thought to how a few small changes in plans may
> make it better for us in a "weird situation".

Well, the difficulty at the moment is that low level bandwidth limiting
is a bit of a mess. It would be possible to support multiple low level
limits but it'd be a lot of work and a lot of debugging.
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
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

Reply via email to