Hi, Its been _correctly_ pointed out to me that posting connection info is a BAD idea (SORRY). I have been using freenet for years. I posted quickly with blinders on. Suspect I will not be the last to make this sort of error. Why do we not move the ip/name:port field into the details page? This way if/when this sort of info is posted much less is given away.
Thanks, Ed On Friday 09 June 2006 07:31, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > Hi, > > nextgens r9080 | zothar | 2006-06-08 06:06:33 +0200 (jeu, 08 jun 2006) | 1 > line > nextgens Chemins modifis : > nextgens M /trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/PeerNode.java > nextgens Refactor sentHandshake() and couldNotSendHandshake() to share code > paths. > nextgens I would bet that it's the problem > nextgens people seeing backoff, what version are you running ? > nextgens pre or post r9080 ? > > I currently have 9 connections with 6 backed off: > > nserts: 2 > Requests: 2 > Transferring Requests: 0 > ARK Fetch Requests: 8 > > CONNECTED: 3 > BACKED OFF: 6 > DISCONNECTED: 14 > > and > > CONNECTED BurntToast 82.34.170.133:28863 (625ms) Fred,0.7,1.0,765 > 0.45966942608650907 0/5/ForwardRejectedOverload 0m > CONNECTED Heghlu'meH 80.133.151.215:8010 (580ms) Fred,0.7,1.0,787 > 0.11487105409025133 0/5/AcceptedTimeout 0m > CONNECTED nanelmoth 8.7.49.235:32647 (491ms) Fred,0.7,1.0,781 > 0.10337429496720563 0/5/AfterInsertAcceptedTimeout2 0m > BACKED OFF Apophis 85.10.199.232:1103 (595ms) Fred,0.7,1.0,780 > 0.11015025723445537 701/1280/AcceptedTimeout 0m > BACKED OFF FredIsMyFriend 84.154.75.10:27025 (716ms) Fred,0.7,1.0,787 > 0.1109663996605127 522/5120/ForwardRejectedOverload 0m > BACKED OFF sitharusdotcom 60.234.236.202:9015 (814ms) Fred,0.7,1.0,787 > 0.4187372334972036 7442/10800/ForwardRejectedOverload 0m > BACKED OFF Toad/dark 82.32.17.1:24374 (644ms) Fred,0.7,1.0,785 > 0.452479314480818 121/640/AcceptedTimeout 0m > BACKED OFF Zothar130 129.107.39.54:38949 (709ms) Fred,0.7,1.0,787 > 0.15816777656083858 6297/10800/AcceptedTimeout 0m > BACKED OFF Zothar70 70.242.96.71:38942 (1019ms) Fred,0.7,1.0,787 > 0.10091296456108578 2778/10800/ForwardRejectedOverload 0m > > How about others? > > Ed > > BTW. Given that my nodes 'busy' profile, in terms of network traffic, varies > by the second I strongly > suggest we try start backoff at a smaller number say 0.5 seconds so the first > backoff interval would be > up to 1 second (as opposed to 10 seconds). I predict this is will lead to a > smoother use of the > available bandwidth. > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > >
