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 at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
