On Friday 28 January 2011 18:25:09 Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:14:14 +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > (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? > > How does one differentiate between a resend and useful data?
Generally you don't on the receiver side. On the sender side it is obvious from the stats - both the overall bandwidth stats and the per-peer in/out/resent stats. > Does the > value in the /stats page, or on the peer-list page indicate useful > data? If so, it is steadily rising, even when the peer is backed off, > even when my downstream is peaked at FIVE TIMES my downstream limit :p > completely saturating my downstream (upstream is always generally > low-traffic), for many (~5+) minutes. IMHO it is likely that it is resends because we do *try* to respect the downstream limits in our acceptance of requests. I.e. we only accept as many requests as we can transfer the data for, within 60 seconds (realtime) or 120 seconds (bulk); add a bit on for overhead. Plus we have some rarely used token buckets; your reject reasons might be interesting. However, it is still possible for it to max it out for a while even without resending; it just seems more likely that it is resending. The difficulty with the resending theory is that if your upstream is okay, and you don't have the sort of connection where saturating your downstream also makes your upstream break (I believe some forms of DSL have this problem or used to), there is no real reason to expect mass resend, except perhaps for hard to identify bugs.
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
