On Thursday 12 November 2009 19:43:15 Robert Hailey wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Robert Hailey > > <robert at freenetproject.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Nov 10, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Robert Hailey wrote: > >> > >> Since I have freenet installed on an old machine, my observations... > >> It made the computer all but unusable! On a hunch, I cut it's > >> datastore size to a minimum and found that the impact was not > >> noticeable. > >> > >> Poor wording, I meant there was a huge swing, that the impact of > >> freenet > >> went from being unacceptable to not noticeable. > > > > Numbers? > > > > What was the machine? CPU, RAM? > > > > What size store did you first try, and what size worked? What memory > > limit did you set for Freenet? How much swapping was occurring in > > each case? How much CPU usage? How much disk IO? > > > > Evan Daniel > > 800Mhz (ppc/g4), 512 Mb > > security-levels.networkThreatLevel=HIGH > security-levels.physicalThreatLevel=LOW > security-levels.friendsThreatLevel=LOW > > The current store size is 32mb (minimum), I do not recall what the old > store size was (surely >4gb).
Is it possible the disks are unusually slow? On a small store you would have almost as many requests succeed, but none from store; on a large store you'd have a fair number of hits, which involve disk access, and probably more network load... does it use less bandwidth now? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20091113/7afe6a4e/attachment.pgp>
