This is a trace for my darknet and opennet node both running ... also, it includes incoming packets as well as outgoing.
Still: Total small packets: 321,428. This is 267 small packets per second! Lets divide it by 2 for 2 nodes, we get 130 packets per second. The message most frequently sent is FNPLinkPong. The code will send no more than one message every 200 milliseconds (total across all nodes), so in theory we shouldn't have more than 5 per second outgoing per node... of course, that is FNPLinkPing's. Since I have 23 active connections, most of which will have relatively few connections, it is quite possible that they would send me relatively many FNPLinkPing's per second... but still, this cannot account for the bulk of it because there are only twice as many FNPLinkPong's as packetTransmit's in a dump I made of what messages are being sent... (1kB+ packets are usually packetTransmit's, as packetTransmit's are always 1kB). Note also that this is a very noisy sample; there may be others using the link, and I can't see immediately how to only capture outgoing UDP in iptraf. Suppose the average connected peer had 5 other peers. I have 23 peers. Each would therefore send me one packet per second. That still doesn't even begin to explain the situation... hmmmmm. On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:30:39PM +0100, 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. -------------- 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/b441de9f/attachment.pgp>
