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>
