Am Freitag, 2. September 2011, 12:20:02 schrieb Ian Clarke: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Matthew Toseland <toad at > amphibian.dyndns.org > > wrote: > > > > WE NEED MORE DATA. > > Well, my gut tells me that our existing scheme is likely too complicated to > fix unless we are extremely fortuitous, however I'm happy to be wrong about > that if others think that they have a good understanding of why we're having > problems and how to fix them.
If the load balancer does not have some hidden delicacies, there is a very simple check to see if my understanding is right. Since SSKs are mostly unsuccessfull and are about 50% of the requests, the bandwidth limiter essentially targets 50% of the bandwidth. Setting my bandwidth to about 150% of my actual bandwidth should make it guess my bandwidth more correctly, leaving 25% free for bursting?. Currently the mean bandwidth with NLM and AIMDs for me is about 50 kB/s on a setting of 90kB/s outgoing. My line can handle about 120kB/s outgoing. So I set the bandwidth setting to 180kB/s. If I am right, Freenet should then consume about 90kB/s on average. If it stays at 50-60, that?s likely a limitation of my peers ? no useful data ? test would have to be done on a slower line or with more peers. If it goes down or I get very many timeouts, then I?m likely wrong. It would be nice if some other people could replicate that. Note: I just disabled my testnet node to avoid skewing the data. Best wishes, Arne -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 316 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20110902/bd7a8c0f/attachment.pgp>