then i hope you're pleased  with my other observations?

so one can say, a node is unusable without doubt if it has less than, say, 40 
connections to other nodes, is halfway useable if less than 60 and after that it's 
maybe the mainport could give credit to this and not only show the 'first time user 
message' but also a box describing verbally how many connections there are and what 
successes the user can expect with that 
amount of connections. this might hopefully dam up the 'help! my node can't connect' 
mails and increase 1st time users' rating. communication is usually helpful ;) 
especially between cryptic and strange nodes and 
freenet maidens....

>It rejected the requests because it only had one connection. It had
>nowhere to route the request to and didn't have it in its routing table,
>so it instantly RNF'd it.
>On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 10:54:22PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> hi there, today i've tried the new 5090 build and i'd like to share my ex=
>periences with you.
>> first of, i've run into the 'too big seednodes' problem, too.... cutting =
>the seednodes into half and throwing away one of these halves helped, as we=
>ll as the suggestion to strip the file of every 'estimator' line, which=20
>> worked very well too (dunno if it breaks something either, but neverthele=
>ss all the noderefs seem to show up in the RT)
>> one of the first times i started my node, it had about ~30 connections to=
> other nodes after not quite 1 hour. then i restarted the node (because i n=
>eeded full network bandwidth). the next node start provided me=20
>> ONE connection to another node in the first 20 minutes. even after 2h of =
>uptime i've come to only 20 live connections. that's weird and very depress=
>ing :-/ as you can imagine the node was never really useable as=20
>> it was constantly backed off by all nodes it had connections to.
>> what i've discovered then is the main reason why i write this mail.
>> at the time my node had this only one connection to the other node i was =
>able to track the type of the messages which got passed between the two nod=
>> interesting was, that the foreign node (i will now call it 'node B') was =
>quite "gentle" to my node ('A') as it routed some DataRequests and later so=
>me StoreDatas into my direction. so one can say that node B tried to=20
>> integrate my node into the network and thus began to route some things in=
>to my direction. not too many, but what i'd like to call "just right", mean=
>s something like around 1 message per 1 minute. (hm, i suppose it=20
>> could be more)
>> after some time the passed message types shown at the ocm connections pag=
>e looked like this:
>> Accepted     3/1=09
>> DataNotFound 0/1=09
>> QueryRejected        3/0=09
>> DataRequest  1/3=09
>> he send 3 DataRequests, i sent 3 Accepted, and now it comes.. my node res=
>ponded immediately with 3 QueryRejecteds! (all numbers were always equal wh=
>en reloading the page, 2=3D2=3D2, 4=3D4=3D4, ...)
>> the question is: why did my node reject the query?
>> see the following stats:
>> Current routingTime  0ms=09
>> Current messageSendTimeRequest       0ms=09
>> Pooled threads running jobs  47 (39,2%)=09
>> Pooled threads which are idle        7=09
>> Current upstream bandwidth usage     76 bytes/second (1,9%)=09
>> Current estimated load for QueryReject purposes      39%=09
>> Current estimated load for rate limiting     39,2%=09
>> Reason for load:     Load due to thread limit =3D 39,2%
>> Load due to routingTime =3D 10% =3D 100ms / 1000ms <=3D overloadLow (100%)
>> Load due to messageSendTimeRequest =3D 20% =3D 100ms / 500ms <=3D overloa=
>> (100%)
>> Load due to output bandwidth limiting =3D 2,3% because outputBytes(4589) =
>> limit (196608,003 ) =3D outLimitCutoff (0,8) * outputBandwidthLimit (4096=
>) *=20
>> 60
>> Load due to expected inbound transfers: 0,5% because: 1000.0 req/hr *=20
>> 9.950189371914758E-4 (pTransfer) * 86016.0 bytes =3D 85587 bytes/hr expec=
>> from current requests, but maxInputBytes/minute =3D 245760 (set input lim=
>it) *=20
>> 60 * 1.1 =3D 16220160 bytes/hr target
>> Load due to expected outbound transfers: 4,2% because: 5046.5665649684115=
>> req/hr * 9.970089730807576E-4(2 0s, 0 1s, 2 total) (pTransfer) * 86016.0=
>> bytes =3D 432787 bytes/hr expected from current requests, but=20
>> maxInputBytes/minute =3D 172032 * 60 * 0.8 =3D 10321920 bytes/hr target=
>> my node was *never* overloaded  --okay, the first few seconds after node =
>startup the messageSTR was huge--  but after that the node was constantly a=
>round 20-40% load; bw was nearly unused (i set bw to poor=20
>> 4kb/s up and down, but that was even never reached. a later removal of th=
>e limit did not help, either), cpu usage was very low too as nothing happen=
>ed on the node.
>> ----> why should the node answer with a QR? i don't get it.
>> of course the other node will be disppointed by my node's performance and=
> decide to route somewhere else (or it ignores the QR and hammers regardles=
>s earning even more QRs)
>> maybe there's a nasty bug somewhere which leads to the massive QR diploma=
>cy we can see all around freenettown hindering everything as nearly all nod=
>es are backed off.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Support mailing list
>> Unsubscribe at
>> Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Freenet Project Official Codemonkey -
>ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
>Content-Description: Digital signature
>Content-Disposition: inline
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>Support mailing list
>Unsubscribe at

Support mailing list
Unsubscribe at

Reply via email to