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 
>  > (based on a rule of thumb of setting limits to half bandwidth capacity).
>  >
>  > You would want to adjust:
>  >
>  > inputBandwidthLimit=12500000
>  > and
>  > outputBandwidthLimit=12500000
>  >
>  > Those suggested values are in bytes. You may want to adjust, but the 
>  > values would be too low.
>  >
> Thanks.  The comments in the freenet.conf file say that inputBandwidthLimit 
> outputBandwidthLimit are in units of bytes per second, not bits per second - 
> 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 20000, 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 
> so I'll try that.  The mention in the comments that these were "independent" 
> 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 
> 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:

(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 
> which I'll deal with when I see crashes.  If you're aware of something more 
> please tell.

Nope. I'd agree with all your comments. 

>  > What does FRED have to say for itself?
>  >
>  >
> 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 transferred            1,285 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 
> could be competetive with bittorrent, and was worried that I'd botched 
> badly.  I think I've been through about four of the FAQ pages, a couple of 
> have a subtextual hint that it may be quite a while before one's node is 
> connected, but not much idea of the scale of "quite a while".  Setting 
> 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
Unsubscribe at

Reply via email to