On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 07:30:50PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote: > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > On Friday 02 April 2010 17:43:25 Evan Daniel wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Matthew Toseland > >> <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > >> > On Friday 02 April 2010 17:31:13 Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 09 March 2010 04:27:24 Evan Daniel wrote: > >> >> > You should really send these to the support list; that's what it's > >> >> > for. > >> >> > > >> >> > You can change the physical security level setting independently of > >> >> > the network seclevels -- see configuration -> security levels. > >> >> > > >> >> > I'm not sure what else to suggest at this point. ?You could try > >> >> > increasing the amount of ram for temp buckets (configuration -> core > >> >> > settings), but that's mostly a stab in the dark. > >> >> > > >> >> > I suspect you need to reduce the amount of stuff in your queue. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks Evan for helping Daniel. In theory it ought to be possible to > >> >> have a nearly unlimited number of downloads in the queue: That is > >> >> precisely why we decided to use a database to store the progress of > >> >> downloads. Unfortunately, in practice, disks are slow, and the more > >> >> stuff is queued, the less of it will be cached in RAM i.e. the more > >> >> reliant we are on slow disks. > >> >> > >> >> There are many options for optimising the code so that it uses the disk > >> >> less. But unfortunately they are all a significant amount of work. > >> >> > >> >> See https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=4031 and the bugs it is > >> >> marked as related to. > >> > > >> > So I guess the real question here is, how important is it that we be > >> > able to queue 60 downloads and still have acceptable performance? How > >> > many users use Freenet filesharing in that sort of way? > >> > >> All of them, I suspect. ?If a file is mostly downloaded, but not > >> complete, the natural response seems to be to leave it there in hopes > >> it will complete, and add other files in the mean time. ?Combined with > >> unretrievable files due to missing blocks, this will produce very > >> large download queues. > > > > So this bug should be fairly high priority, despite its potentially being > > quite a lot of work?: > > > > https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=4031 > > I think so. I believe I've been saying client layer should be high > priority for a while :) > > Evan Daniel
Matthew, if it didn't change, you're the only one who understand the client-layer code of fred... Yes, it sounds like very-high priority to me too. Florent
