nodeUptime: 11h54m
On 2006-10-07 (Sat) at 08:01:33 -0500, Brandon Low wrote: > Cached keys: 462,933 (14.1 GiB) > Stored keys: 13,172 (411 MiB) > Overall size: 476,105/2,455,108 (14.5 GiB/74.9 GiB) > Cache hits: 4,820 / 30,204 (15%) > Store hits: 85 / 23,627 (0%) > Avg. access rate: 1/s > > On 2006-10-07 (Sat) at 00:01:21 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > 1. THE STORE IS *LESS* EFFECTIVE THAN THE CACHE! > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > Please could people post their store statistics? Cache hits, store hits, > > cached keys, stored keys. > > > > So far: > > [23:11] <nextgens> # Cached keys: 6,389 (199 MiB) > > [23:11] <nextgens> # Stored keys: 24,550 (767 MiB) > > [23:09] <nextgens> # Cache hits: 217 / 12,738 (1%) > > [23:09] <nextgens> # Store hits: 14 / 10,818 (0%) > > > > (Cached hits / cached keys) / (Stored hits / stored keys) = 59.56 > > > > [23:12] <cyberdo> # Cached keys: 17,930 (560 MiB) > > [23:12] <cyberdo> # Stored keys: 24,895 (777 MiB) > > [23:14] <cyberdo> # Cache hits: 178 / 3,767 (4%) > > [23:14] <cyberdo> # Store hits: 11 / 2,970 (0%) > > > > (Cached hits / cached keys) / (Stored hits / stored keys) = 22.47 > > > > [23:14] <sandos> # Cached keys: 45,148 (1.37 GiB) > > [23:14] <sandos> # Stored keys: 16,238 (507 MiB) > > [23:11] <sandos> # Cache hits: 41 / 861 (4%) > > [23:11] <sandos> # Store hits: 5 / 677 (0%) > > > > (Cached hits / cached keys) / (Stored hits / stored keys) = 2.95 > > > > Thus, in practice, the cache is far more efficient than the store. > > > > The cache caches every key fetched or inserted through this node. > > > > The store stores only keys inserted, and of those, only those for which > > there is no closer node to the key amongst our peers. > > > > > > The cache being more effective than the store (and note that the above > > is for CHKs only) implies either: > > 1. Routing is broken. > > 2. There is more location churn than the store can cope with. > > 3. There is more data churn than the store can cope with. > > > > > > 2. SUSPICIONS OF EXCESSIVE LOCATION CHURN > > ----------------------------------------- > > > > ljn1981 said that his node would often do a swap and then reverse it. > > However several people say their location is more or less what it was. > > It is necessary to make a log of a node's location changes over time... > > > > > > 3. PROBE REQUESTS NOT WORKING > > ----------------------------- > > > > "Probe requests" are a new class of requests which simply take a > > location, and try to find the next location - the lowest location > > greater than the one they started with. Here's a recent trace (these can > > be triggered by telneting to 2323 and typing PROBEALL:, then watching > > wrapper.log): > > > > LOCATION 1: 0.00917056526893234 > > LOCATION 2: 0.009450590423585203 > > LOCATION 3: 0.009507800765948482 > > LOCATION 4: 0.03378227720218496 > > [ delays ] > > LOCATION 5: 0.033884263580090224 > > [ delays ] > > LOCATION 6: 0.03557139211207139 > > LOCATION 7: 0.04136594238104219 > > LOCATION 8: 0.06804731119243879 > > LOCATION 9: 0.06938071503433951 > > LOCATION 10: 0.11468659860500963 > > [ big delays ] > > LOCATION 11: 0.11498938134581993 > > LOCATION 12: 0.11800179518614218 > > LOCATION 13: 0.1180104005154885 > > LOCATION 14: 0.11907112718505641 > > LOCATION 15: 0.3332896508938398 > > [ biggish delays ] > > LOCATION 16: 0.6963082287578662 > > LOCATION 17: 0.7003642648424434 > > LOCATION 18: 0.7516363167204175 > > LOCATION 19: 0.7840227104081505 > > LOCATION 20: 0.8238921670991454 > > LOCATION 21: 0.8551853934902863 > > LOCATION 22: 0.8636946791670825 > > LOCATION 23: 0.8755575572906827 > > LOCATION 24: 0.883042607673485 > > LOCATION 25: 0.8910451777595195 > > LOCATION 26: 0.8930966991557874 > > LOCATION 27: 0.8939968594038799 > > LOCATION 28: 0.8940798222254085 > > LOCATION 29: 0.8941104802690825 > > LOCATION 30: 0.9103443172876444 > > LOCATION 31: 0.9103717579924239 > > LOCATION 32: 0.9107237145701387 > > LOCATION 33: 0.9108357699627044 > > LOCATION 34: 0.9130496893125409 > > LOCATION 35: 0.9153056056305631 > > [ delays ] > > LOCATION 36: 0.9180229911856111 > > LOCATION 37: 0.9184676396364483 > > LOCATION 38: 0.9198162081803294 > > LOCATION 39: 0.9232383399833453 > > [ big delays ] > > LOCATION 40: 0.9232484869765467 > > LOCATION 41: 0.9398827726484242 > > LOCATION 42: 0.9420672052844097 > > LOCATION 43: 0.9442367949642505 > > LOCATION 44: 0.9521296958111133 > > [ big delays ] > > LOCATION 45: 0.9521866483104723 > > LOCATION 46: 0.9562645053030697 > > LOCATION 47: 0.9715290823566148 > > LOCATION 48: 0.9722492845296398 > > LOCATION 49: 0.974283274258849 > > [ big delays ... ] > > > > Clearly there are more than around 50 nodes on freenet at any given > > time, and the above includes some really big jumps, as well as some > > really small ones. This may be a problem with probe requests, but it > > is suspicious... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Devl mailing list > > Devl@freenetproject.org > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl@freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
