On Friday 28 January 2011 18:05:53 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:44:07 +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:01:28 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:49:57 +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:17:15 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:55:58 +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 20:14:52 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:43 +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:42:38 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:55 +0000, Matthew Toseland
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday 24 January 2011 22:28:36 you wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:29:14 +0000, Matthew Toseland
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Freenet 0.7.5 build 1336 is now available. Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > upgrade, it will be mandatory on Friday. Much of
> > > > > > > > > > > > this build is intended to try to improve network
> > > > > > > > > > > > performance and particularly to prevent transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > failures especially on realtime requests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Details:
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Fix some block transfer bugs related to transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > coalescing, disconnects and reassigning to self
> > > > > > > > > > > > after a request has taken too long.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Keep on transferring the data if we need it for
> > > > > > > > > > > > a local request, and explain why this is safe in
> > > > > > > > > > > > comments. However it will go away when we get rid
> > > > > > > > > > > > of receiver-side transfer cancels anyway.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Fix even more bugs related to request forking on
> > > > > > > > > > > > timeout.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Always drop the queued messages when we
> > > > > > > > > > > > disconnect due to a timeout.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Eliminate turtle transfers, they are no longer
> > > > > > > > > > > > necessary and involve unnecessary complexity and
> > > > > > > > > > > > transfer cancels. We will soon eliminate receiver
> > > > > > > > > > > > cancels too which will further simplify matters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Remove timed out filters more often.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Show totals for backoff times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Fixes to auto-testing code.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > This build still can't manage to handle input
> > > > > > > > > > > bandwidth sanely, on a congested connection -- it
> > > > > > > > > > > entirely consumes my already busy connection. (Aka.
> > > > > > > > > > > my freenet is still unusable here.)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Limiting input bandwidth usage accurately is
> > > > > > > > > > extraordinarily difficult and most people have fat
> > > > > > > > > > pipes downstream.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Probably your peers are resending packets constantly.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > So, umm, make them stop, after say a minute of flooding?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > And disconnect completely? That kind of defeats the point
> > > > > > > > doesn't it?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No, that doesn't defeat the point. The point is to have a
> > > > > > > running Freenet, which is simply not possible at the moment,
> > > > > > > since it will flood my internet connection to an unusable
> > > > > > > state.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > A running Freenet that disconnects from all your peers and
> > > > > > constantly announces because your connection is broken? How is
> > > > > > that useful?
> > > > > 
> > > > > My connection isn't broken. I actually took much pain to
> > > > > somewhat guarantee that my Freenet gets the bandwidth I
> > > > > allocate it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > Moreover, what's the problem with "completely disconnecting"
> > > > > > > from a peer, after it continues to flood us for many
> > > > > > > minutes?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You are flooding it, not the other way around. It's entirely
> > > > > > your fault for not having the bandwidth to handle the data.
> > > > > > Freenet is tested and developed on typical connections which
> > > > > > have lots of downstream bandwidth and not much upstream
> > > > > > bandwidth. And Freenet is only doing exactly what TCP would
> > > > > > do! Admittedly TCP has a different algorithm for estimating
> > > > > > round trip times, and a more precise congestion control
> > > > > > mechanism. But I have yet to be convinced that this is a
> > > > > > serious issue for any other person than you and therefore
> > > > > > worth spending significant amounts of developer time on. I'm
> > > > > > also not sure exactly what would fix it...
> > > > > 
> > > > > I really think you haven't understood the problem yet. This
> > > > > isn't just a bumpy averaging of bursting input -- this is a
> > > > > *sustained 5+ minute flood that completely uses up 100KB/s
> > > > > downstream connection, and 5x the bandwidth I allocate it*.
> > > > > You're not sure what would fix it? Like I mentioned a couple
> > > > > times here already, *how about after a minute or two, telling
> > > > > my connected peers to SLOW DOWN*?
> > > > 
> > > > The reason they are sending data is that they are NOT receiving
> > > > your acknowledgements. So sending yet more control data won't
> > > > help.
> > > 
> > > Well that sure sounds like a recipe for disaster. How long are peers
> > > supposed to keep pushing data to un-acknowledging peers, before they
> > > do something?
> > 
> > As I understand it, and if any networking gurus are around please
> > correct me, IT IS EXACTLY WHAT TCP DOES.
> 
> I was referring to Freenet's custom congestion control. There is no
> resending of UDP packets, unless Freenet pro-actively resends it.

Right, and what we do is we resend packets if they are not acknowledged after a 
few round trips. Which is pretty much what TCP does.
> 
> 
> > > (My last flood occurred for over 10 minutes, and then managed to
> > > stop. I believe all 5 of my connected strangers were listed as
> > > BackedOff during the flood. I will try to provide more details and
> > > more testing.)
> > 
> > Was your upstream saturated at the time due to e.g. external pressure?
> 
> Nope. It might have started the flood -- I'll do some more testing,
> but during the flood the connection was only minimally being used. (I
> really don't know why my peers will still dumping so much data onto my
> node -- perhaps it was in their to-send queues? Perhaps there is a bug,
> and they didn't get my slow-down traffic messages?)

What slow down messages?

Are you saying that the peers are actually doing exactly what the node is 
asking of them, i.e. sending useful data? I.e. it's not a problem with constant 
resends? If so, you have no basis to complain! Yes we don't respect downstream 
limits, but it's very difficult to respect downstream limits!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to