-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 | On Friday 09 May 2008 07:27, Victor Denisov wrote: |> | Automatic bandwidth calibration. Other p2p apps have this, we should |> have it. |> |> Good idea. Also, we should definitely look into better utilizing |> available bandwidth. Freenet's the only p2p app which consistently |> underutilizes my upload limit (~ 2 Mbit/s out of 8 Mbit/s of link |> capacity). I understand that we don't want to create supernodes, but |> come on, 2 Mbit/s is *nothing* these days. | | IMHO automatic bandwidth calibration will help a lot with this. Beyond that | we're looking at token passing, which may be too big for 0.7.1.
Excerpt from my current node stats: networkSizeEstimateSession: 6039 nodes nodeUptime: 2d1h pInstantReject: 0,0% uptimeAverage: 100,0% Peer statistics ~ * Connected: 17 ~ * Backed off: 3 ~ * Seeding for: 111 Input Rate: 17.6 KiB/sec (of 300 KiB) Output Rate: 15.9 KiB/sec (of 200 KiB) Total Input: 4.83 GiB (28.3 KiB/sec) Total Output: 5.66 GiB (33.2 KiB/sec) Used Java memory: 122 MiB Allocated Java memory: 127 MiB Maximum Java memory: 284 MiB Running threads: 152/700 So, basically, network had grown about 3x after 0.7 release. My node has been up for 2 days, and is pretty well established in the network. It's not overloaded (CPU usage is ~ 5-10%). Yet it doesn't use more than about 15% of the allowed bandwidth, on average. Automatic bandwidth calibration won't help - I've allowed Freenet to use much less that my uplink allows to. It could be related to the fact that I've only been able to dedicate about 2 Gb for my store, but I doubt it. | Agreed, memory usage is a usability issue: the user shouldn't have to care | about it. Great that we agree on this one. I've been unsuccessful in bringing at least two of my friends to Freenet because they were running into memory-related problems, one of them going as far as calling Freenet "that damn bloatware" (well, actual wording also included a couple of pretty strong Russian expletives :-((((). |> Shouldn't we consider auto-updating bundled applications as well? Or |> perhaps providing an auto-update API for use by third-party apps? Just a |> thought. | | Maybe, that would be harder though. I would be happy to discuss it with their | authors. Well, it seems more or less straightforward from the outside: handle additional update URLs and a set of (revocable?) public keys + expose the API over FCP. Am I missing something important? Regards, Victor Denisov. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIKJhIS81Mh9/iCDgRAkPFAJ96CPlcNouiHiVjavq/xtY6y8XR6QCglIpB IwLrElLZxQZyo9WKTTWdbyo= =FMsn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
