gpg: Signature made Fri May 2 11:13:58 2008 UTC using DSA key ID E43DA450
gpg: Good signature from "Matthew John Toseland <toad@amphibian.dyndns.org>"
On Friday 02 May 2008 04:13, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Matthew Toseland
> <toad@???> wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 May 2008 16:20, sich wrote:
> > > Ermanno Baschiera a écrit :
> > > > Hi,
> > > > In my opinion a good bandwidth control system should be necessary. I
> > > > read that at the moment it's not very accurate. I think that all
> > > > people with low bandwidth can benefit from an accurate bandwidth
> > > > control. I mean... think about new comers who want to give a try
> > > > running Freenet... They keep the node up for some days... their MSN
> > > > starts to disconnect every 5 minutes, surfing becomes slow and they
> > > > often have to reload pages... even if they set their node's output
> > > > bandwidth to a resonable value. I'm afraid they at last could give up
> > > > and unistall freenet.
> > > > I had those problems, but with the last 3-4 builds, it happens much
> > > > less often, and I can't exclude that it could be my isp's fault
(maybe
> > > > throttling?) or something else, not Freenet. Anyway, an accurate
> > > > bandwidth control cannot hurt.
> > > >
> > > > -Ermanno Baschiera
> > > For me the problem is that Freenet don't use all the bandwitch
> > > avaible... I have very good bandwitch but Freenet is only using around
> > > 40ko/s...
> >
> > Do you have 0% pInstantReject as well? If so, your node is accepting
every
> > request sent to it, yet is still not using much bandwidth (compared to
what
> > it could do). Which is what I find on my node when I run with a high
bwlimit:
> > our neighbours simply don't send us enough requests to use up all the
> > bandwidth, even taking into account that their neighbours are probably
> > rejecting a lot of requests, so we probably get a lot of the rejected
> > requests due to not being backed off.
> >
> > I don't know that there's much that can be done about this. Load limiting
> > adapts to the average network conditions, and we can't go too much beyond
> > that without breaking routing.
>
> You could increase the number of peers, and thus get more traffic...
True, but:
1) We'd have to scale it by bandwidth. I just turned that off due to some
negative testing results (much fewer non-backed-off peers, also slightly
lower payload although that may be illusory due to low uptime).
2) If we have 50 peers per opennet node, that will give darknet-only nodes a
significant performance penalty. Therefore there needs to be a good reason to
do it.
We might make some progress if we had a new load management system (e.g. token
passing), under which we could explicitly tune how much we can use
ubernodes...
>
> Evan Daniel
