On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:42:20PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Each of these packets is, I assume, a single message.  I think it  
> would be useful to see a break-down showing number of messages, and  
> total message size (ie. total bw used) on a per-message type basis.

Most of them. Some coalescing *can* occur, but we make no effort
whatsoever to delay packets for coalescing.
> 
> Ian.
> 
> On 6 Apr 2006, at 14:30, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> 
> >Packet Size (bytes)      Count     Packet Size (bytes)     Count
> >    1 to   75:           20248      751 to  825:              31
> >   76 to  150:          239541      826 to  900:              28
> >  151 to  225:           52956      901 to  975:              35
> >  226 to  300:            7297      976 to 1050:              15
> >  301 to  375:             547     1051 to 1125:              35
> >  376 to  450:             385     1126 to 1200:           17657
> >  451 to  525:             216     1201 to 1275:             129
> >  526 to  600:              44     1276 to 1350:              97
> >  601 to  675:              36     1351 to 1425:             139
> >  676 to  750:              14     1426 to 1500+:           1311
> >
> >This is a log of packet size from my node over a period of 20 minutes.
> >Actually of my 2 nodes, and probably a little TCP traffic too, but not
> >much.
> >
> >Interesting features:
> >
> >76-150-byte packets: 239451 * 100 = 23,945,100
> >1126-1200-byte packets: 17657 * 1150 = 20,305,550
> >
> >Of the first group, 56 bytes per packet is overhead, so 13,409,256  
> >bytes
> >overhead out of that 23MB - something like a quarter of the whole.
> >
> >Obviously having many variable sized small packets is a bad thing for
> >security, but surely it is a good thing for latency to be as low as
> >possible by sending messages immediately?
> >
> >Another interesting point: If more than half of our bandwidth usage is
> >on small packets, then our policy of only bandwidth limiting large
> >packets cannot possibly work.
> >-- 
> >Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org
> >Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
> >ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Devl mailing list
> >Devl at freenetproject.org
> >http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
> 

-- 
Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: 
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060406/c7e57723/attachment.pgp>

Reply via email to