On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:10:01AM +0000, 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://127.0.0.1:8888/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 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? 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.
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]