Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
Probably worth mentioning here, since it's apparently not obvious enough: Changing everything all at once can never be progress - and "discussions" with that aim are noise, at best (wholesale destruction if attempted). -- Raul On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:09 AM Bruce Jagid wrote: > > If you actually thought you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn’t > feel the need to insert “I’m not an OS Dev” after everything you say > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:05 AM wrote: > > > oh, Theo, if I were to start changing thing to the perfect OS > > security-wise, > > it wouldn't even look like OpenBSD code anymore, but OpenBSD still best > > what > > world have to offer > > > > so do you agree with my logic? at least give me that > > at least tell me is this how things stand FD-wise/limit-wise/whatever, you > > probably know the best out of all I e-mailed with > > > > no attempt yet,in future I hope,it's not a I am too lazy reason > > > > On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:58 pm, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > > > > > >> I know system shares all resources including FDs > > >> as far as I know there's what kernel/OS needs and is using and the rest > > of > > >> users including but not limited to staff and daemon users/programs like > > >> i2pd all I was wondering is the limit or amount of FDs and other > > resources > > >> the rest of users of daemon can use in my head is a total amount which > > >> apparently is unknown (I have been told why, but how can anyone work > > with > > >> that? it's like relying on someone mentally unstable) which is then > > devided, > > >> kernel/OS gets all that it needs, users and daemons get the rest which > > IS > > >> DIVIDED (in my head) until there is no more to > > >> divide/give away/share am I close? > > >> > > >> okay maybe not make all available resources to 1 program is not how it > > >> works but why not if that's the only programs that's running? I do not > > >> understand if it's even possible to do what I'm asking or questioning, > > I am > > >> not a OS dev because of reasons, but I like discussing such because I > > like > > >> OS-dev > > >> > > >> > > >> and just because what I ask isn't how it works doesn't mean it's bad? it > > >> could mean > > > > > > You've been provided with all the source code. > > > > > > > > > Where is your attempt to change things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
I don't know, I told you, all I worked with are what you guys told me, what made sense and what I could found online I did not read code because I am not OS dev and don't have as much time as I would like, so this is the best I could do, Theo didn't tell me if I was wrong or right, he told me to make changes to source code and he is out.. does that mean I am right or to just read source code? I maybe make no sense always, but neither do you guys I am as friendly as I can be, I said what I tried and didn't try, and who I am and who I am not - best regards, I hope we can make friendships regardless of out differences and knowledge, enemies are easy to make On Tue, January 30, 2024 4:08 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: > If you actually thought you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn’t > feel the need to insert “I’m not an OS Dev” after everything you say > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:05 AM wrote: > > >> oh, Theo, if I were to start changing thing to the perfect OS security-wise, >> it wouldn't even look like OpenBSD code anymore, but OpenBSD still best >> what world have to offer >> >> so do you agree with my logic? at least give me that at least tell me is >> this how things stand FD-wise/limit-wise/whatever, you probably know the >> best out of all I e-mailed with >> >> no attempt yet,in future I hope,it's not a I am too lazy reason >> >> On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:58 pm, Theo de Raadt wrote: >> >>> beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: >>> I know system shares all resources including FDs as far as I know there's what kernel/OS needs and is using and the rest >> of users including but not limited to staff and daemon users/programs like i2pd all I was wondering is the limit or amount of FDs and other >> resources the rest of users of daemon can use in my head is a total amount which apparently is unknown (I have been told why, but how can anyone work >> with that? it's like relying on someone mentally unstable) which is then >> devided, kernel/OS gets all that it needs, users and daemons get the rest which >> IS >> DIVIDED (in my head) until there is no more to divide/give away/share am I close? okay maybe not make all available resources to 1 program is not how it works but why not if that's the only programs that's running? I do not understand if it's even possible to do what I'm asking or questioning, >> I am >> not a OS dev because of reasons, but I like discussing such because I >> like OS-dev and just because what I ask isn't how it works doesn't mean it's bad? it could mean >>> >>> You've been provided with all the source code. >>> >>> >>> >>> Where is your attempt to change things? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
If you actually thought you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn’t feel the need to insert “I’m not an OS Dev” after everything you say On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:05 AM wrote: > oh, Theo, if I were to start changing thing to the perfect OS > security-wise, > it wouldn't even look like OpenBSD code anymore, but OpenBSD still best > what > world have to offer > > so do you agree with my logic? at least give me that > at least tell me is this how things stand FD-wise/limit-wise/whatever, you > probably know the best out of all I e-mailed with > > no attempt yet,in future I hope,it's not a I am too lazy reason > > On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:58 pm, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > > > >> I know system shares all resources including FDs > >> as far as I know there's what kernel/OS needs and is using and the rest > of > >> users including but not limited to staff and daemon users/programs like > >> i2pd all I was wondering is the limit or amount of FDs and other > resources > >> the rest of users of daemon can use in my head is a total amount which > >> apparently is unknown (I have been told why, but how can anyone work > with > >> that? it's like relying on someone mentally unstable) which is then > devided, > >> kernel/OS gets all that it needs, users and daemons get the rest which > IS > >> DIVIDED (in my head) until there is no more to > >> divide/give away/share am I close? > >> > >> okay maybe not make all available resources to 1 program is not how it > >> works but why not if that's the only programs that's running? I do not > >> understand if it's even possible to do what I'm asking or questioning, > I am > >> not a OS dev because of reasons, but I like discussing such because I > like > >> OS-dev > >> > >> > >> and just because what I ask isn't how it works doesn't mean it's bad? it > >> could mean > > > > You've been provided with all the source code. > > > > > > Where is your attempt to change things? > > > > > > > > >
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
I'm out of here. beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > oh, Theo, if I were to start changing thing to the perfect OS security-wise, > it wouldn't even look like OpenBSD code anymore, but OpenBSD still best what > world have to offer > > so do you agree with my logic? at least give me that > at least tell me is this how things stand FD-wise/limit-wise/whatever, you > probably know the best out of all I e-mailed with > > no attempt yet,in future I hope,it's not a I am too lazy reason > > On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:58 pm, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > > > >> I know system shares all resources including FDs > >> as far as I know there's what kernel/OS needs and is using and the rest of > >> users including but not limited to staff and daemon users/programs like > >> i2pd all I was wondering is the limit or amount of FDs and other resources > >> the rest of users of daemon can use in my head is a total amount which > >> apparently is unknown (I have been told why, but how can anyone work with > >> that? it's like relying on someone mentally unstable) which is then > >> devided, > >> kernel/OS gets all that it needs, users and daemons get the rest which IS > >> DIVIDED (in my head) until there is no more to > >> divide/give away/share am I close? > >> > >> okay maybe not make all available resources to 1 program is not how it > >> works but why not if that's the only programs that's running? I do not > >> understand if it's even possible to do what I'm asking or questioning, I am > >> not a OS dev because of reasons, but I like discussing such because I like > >> OS-dev > >> > >> > >> and just because what I ask isn't how it works doesn't mean it's bad? it > >> could mean > > > > You've been provided with all the source code. > > > > > > Where is your attempt to change things? > > > > > > > >
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
oh, Theo, if I were to start changing thing to the perfect OS security-wise, it wouldn't even look like OpenBSD code anymore, but OpenBSD still best what world have to offer so do you agree with my logic? at least give me that at least tell me is this how things stand FD-wise/limit-wise/whatever, you probably know the best out of all I e-mailed with no attempt yet,in future I hope,it's not a I am too lazy reason On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:58 pm, Theo de Raadt wrote: > beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > >> I know system shares all resources including FDs >> as far as I know there's what kernel/OS needs and is using and the rest of >> users including but not limited to staff and daemon users/programs like >> i2pd all I was wondering is the limit or amount of FDs and other resources >> the rest of users of daemon can use in my head is a total amount which >> apparently is unknown (I have been told why, but how can anyone work with >> that? it's like relying on someone mentally unstable) which is then devided, >> kernel/OS gets all that it needs, users and daemons get the rest which IS >> DIVIDED (in my head) until there is no more to >> divide/give away/share am I close? >> >> okay maybe not make all available resources to 1 program is not how it >> works but why not if that's the only programs that's running? I do not >> understand if it's even possible to do what I'm asking or questioning, I am >> not a OS dev because of reasons, but I like discussing such because I like >> OS-dev >> >> >> and just because what I ask isn't how it works doesn't mean it's bad? it >> could mean > > You've been provided with all the source code. > > > Where is your attempt to change things? > > >
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > I know system shares all resources including FDs > as far as I know there's what kernel/OS needs and is using and the rest of > users including but not limited to staff and daemon users/programs like i2pd > all I was wondering is the limit or amount of FDs and other resources the rest > of users of daemon can use > in my head is a total amount which apparently is unknown (I have been told > why, but how can anyone work with that? it's like relying on someone mentally > unstable) which is then devided, kernel/OS gets all that it needs, users and > daemons get the rest which IS DIVIDED (in my head) until there is no more to > divide/give away/share > am I close? > > okay maybe not make all available resources to 1 program is not how it works > but why not if that's the only programs that's running? > I do not understand if it's even possible to do what I'm asking or > questioning, I am not a OS dev because of reasons, but I like discussing such > because I like OS-dev > > and just because what I ask isn't how it works doesn't mean it's bad? it could > mean You've been provided with all the source code. Where is your attempt to change things?
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
I know system shares all resources including FDs as far as I know there's what kernel/OS needs and is using and the rest of users including but not limited to staff and daemon users/programs like i2pd all I was wondering is the limit or amount of FDs and other resources the rest of users of daemon can use in my head is a total amount which apparently is unknown (I have been told why, but how can anyone work with that? it's like relying on someone mentally unstable) which is then devided, kernel/OS gets all that it needs, users and daemons get the rest which IS DIVIDED (in my head) until there is no more to divide/give away/share am I close? okay maybe not make all available resources to 1 program is not how it works but why not if that's the only programs that's running? I do not understand if it's even possible to do what I'm asking or questioning, I am not a OS dev because of reasons, but I like discussing such because I like OS-dev and just because what I ask isn't how it works doesn't mean it's bad? it could mean - best regards, my man On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:45 pm, Theo de Raadt wrote: > beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > >> maybe not automatically, but having a utility that does this for you and >> you can run it once after each hardare change to find out, but I am not sure >> you say it depends on use-case, I do not understand what you mean >> >> if you read my earlier replies, you would find out that I said I already >> tried searching online for like 1 hour, there is some sort of crazy formula >> one dude did a lot of math, snipets from code, is that what you mean? because >> what you say sound like there are multiple types of FDs, maybe network FDs >> and normal FDs? > > > You are failing to understand the operating system is intending to be a > "sharing" environment -- it is sharing limited resources among multiple > consumers. > > A large number of heuristics exist to defend this sharing, rather than > making resources available to just the 1 piece of software you want. > > What you want isn't how it works. > > > > >
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > maybe not automatically, but having a utility that does this for you and you > can run it once after each hardare change to find out, but I am not sure you > say it depends on use-case, I do not understand what you mean > > if you read my earlier replies, you would find out that I said I already tried > searching online for like 1 hour, there is some sort of crazy formula one dude > did a lot of math, snipets from code, is that what you mean? > because what you say sound like there are multiple types of FDs, maybe network > FDs and normal FDs? You are failing to understand the operating system is intending to be a "sharing" environment -- it is sharing limited resources among multiple consumers. A large number of heuristics exist to defend this sharing, rather than making resources available to just the 1 piece of software you want. What you want isn't how it works.
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
human body changes: different energy levels, tiredness, soar muscle, andrenaline, weight of curls, type of curl like you said computer has same exact hardware every time unless changed like I mentioned nothing changes most servers have different and changing software programs on it, yes but we are talking about system hard limit, not soft limits, the hard limit should stay the same of course you're done, you make no sense to me maybe because you know more or you maybe misunderstand me I think this is far too off-topic and not for ports@ but let's end this topic so I can go maybe to tech@ and misc@ On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:39 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: > no, YOU know more or less based on earlier curls, just like YOU know more or > less based on other programs you’ve run on your OS. And that guess would be > incredibly inaccurate. You can’t just ask for a concrete hard limit and then > relax the conditions such that it becomes a guesstimate. You don’t even > believe your own bs, I’m done arguing. > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:33 AM wrote: > > >> On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:25 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: >> I'm also not a OS dev cannot the OS do some testing/benchmarking >to get a grasp on what the >>> limit could be? YOU are the OS in your example, and you >would know the limit >> when you >>> would do curls slower and maybe you would get more >and more pain.. and crash in >> your example would be your >muscle being in such pain you >>> wouldn't be able to do anything with your >arm/whatever >>> >>> So your body automatically benchmarks how many bicep curls you can do in >>> >> an >>> hour without you having to think about it? You use your body to measure >> the >>> bicep curls it can do, it doesn’t automatically do that. You can use >> your OS >>> to perform the benchmark, but to expect the OS to designate resources >>> automatically to benchmark itself is equal portions naïve and obtuse. >> You have >> >>> a very specific use-case, you should do the work to find your answer. >> >> it can know limit more-less, yes, based on earlier curls >> >> maybe not automatically, but having a utility that does this for you and you >> can run it once after each hardare change to find out, but I am not sure >> you say it depends on use-case, I do not understand what you mean >> >> if you read my earlier replies, you would find out that I said I already >> tried searching online for like 1 hour, there is some sort of crazy formula >> one dude did a lot of math, snipets from code, is that what you mean? because >> what you say sound like there are multiple types of FDs, maybe network FDs >> and normal FDs? >> >> - best regards >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:20 AM wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm also not a OS dev cannot the OS do some testing/benchmarking to get a grasp on what the >> limit could be? YOU are the OS in your example, and you would know the limit >> when you would do curls slower and maybe you would get more and more pain.. >> and crash in your example would be your muscle being in such pain you >> wouldn't be able to do anything with your arm/whatever so you're saying the only fucking way to know a true hardware limit is >> the worst that could be - a crash??? what if crash doesn't happen right >> away? in my case hardware ISP router could be limiting the potential of i2pd >> software or torrenting software boom corrupted data, processes, uncompleted >> important work, lost important work, pain in ass, etc literally couldn't that >> corrupt the entire system, a crash? tell me I am worrying too much, but even then a crash is the worst thing someone can rely on, I think it's unprofessional that the OS allows for >> that sort of insecurity if all you said and I said is correct, I consider >> that to be a security vulnerability at least, not to mention other vulnerabilities On Tue, January 30, 2024 1:32 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: like I asked and no one answered: where >>>can I check HARD LIMIT of my computer? >>> >>> you can't really. you can try increasing >>until you run into >>> problems > and back >>> off a bit, but it probably depends on what >>else the kernel is >>> doing. > usual >>> approach is to restrict the software to >>using the resources >>> that you > expect it >>> to actually need and restrict it from making >>more demands than >>> that >>> to > orotect >>> the rest of the system. > >> this sounds like a bug to me hard limit must be known, else is like >> playing >>> cards, you never know when > you >> lose (you crash) and no one answered my question yet about >i2pd's >> connections to other > routhers >> with can well surpass 8192 up to +3 >connections, and if I am >>
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
I'm sorry, it felt applicable reasons outside of OpenBSD I got no problem with swearing back at me I felt kernel crashes are off-topic, I thought it would be fine because I didn't know it would go for so long this topic of course it is not your problem me crashing non-OpenBSD el-cheapo home router, but OpenBSD guys know networking and maybe routers the best, and maybe benefit others, do I do this on misc@ ? On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:26 pm, Ian Darwin wrote: > On 1/30/24 10:20, beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > >> so you're saying the only fucking way to know a true hardware limit is the >> worst that could be - a crash??? > > Once you start swearing, most people will tune you out. Others will > swear back at you. > > Neither is very productive. > > > Anyway, discussion of kernel crashes belongs on tech@, and discussion of > crashing your non-OpenBSD el-cheapo home router is not our problem anyway. >
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:25 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: >> I'm also not a OS dev >> cannot the OS do some testing/benchmarking >to get a grasp on what the > limit >> could be? YOU are the OS in your example, and you >would know the limit when >> you > would do >> curls slower and maybe you would get more >and more pain.. and crash in your >> example would be your >muscle being in such pain you > wouldn't >> be able to do anything with your >arm/whatever > > So your body automatically benchmarks how many bicep curls you can do in an > hour without you having to think about it? You use your body to measure the > bicep curls it can do, it doesn’t automatically do that. You can use your OS > to perform the benchmark, but to expect the OS to designate resources > automatically to benchmark itself is equal portions naïve and obtuse. You have > a very specific use-case, you should do the work to find your answer. it can know limit more-less, yes, based on earlier curls maybe not automatically, but having a utility that does this for you and you can run it once after each hardare change to find out, but I am not sure you say it depends on use-case, I do not understand what you mean if you read my earlier replies, you would find out that I said I already tried searching online for like 1 hour, there is some sort of crazy formula one dude did a lot of math, snipets from code, is that what you mean? because what you say sound like there are multiple types of FDs, maybe network FDs and normal FDs? - best regards > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:20 AM wrote: > > >> I'm also not a OS dev >> cannot the OS do some testing/benchmarking to get a grasp on what the limit >> could be? YOU are the OS in your example, and you would know the limit when >> you would do curls slower and maybe you would get more and more pain.. and >> crash in your example would be your muscle being in such pain you wouldn't be >> able to do anything with your arm/whatever >> >> so you're saying the only fucking way to know a true hardware limit is the >> worst that could be - a crash??? what if crash doesn't happen right away? in >> my case hardware ISP router could be limiting the potential of i2pd software >> or torrenting software boom corrupted data, processes, uncompleted important >> work, lost important work, pain in ass, etc literally couldn't that corrupt >> the entire system, a crash? >> >> tell me I am worrying too much, but even then a crash is the worst thing >> someone can rely on, I think it's unprofessional that the OS allows for that >> sort of insecurity if all you said and I said is correct, I consider that >> to be a security vulnerability at least, not to mention other >> vulnerabilities >> >> On Tue, January 30, 2024 1:32 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: >> >> >> >> like I asked and no one answered: where >>>can I check HARD LIMIT >> of >> my >> computer? > > you can't really. you can try increasing >>until you run into > problems >>> and back > off a bit, but it probably depends on what >>else the kernel is > doing. >>> usual > approach is to restrict the software to >>using the resources that > you >>> expect it > to actually need and restrict it from making >>more demands than that > >> to >>> orotect > the rest of the system. >>> this sounds like a bug to me hard limit must be known, else is like >> playing > cards, you never know when >>> you lose (you crash) and no one answered my question yet about >i2pd's connections to other >>> routhers with can well surpass 8192 up to +3 >connections, and if I am right >>> then each connection needs a FD? I worked with >networking and programming a >>> little, so this makes sense to me can anyone >verify? if yes, then yes this is >> a bug and I am >disappointed that the only way is >>> to run blindly and trust before crash >>> >>> I might be out of line here since I’m new to OS dev stuff, but what >>> >> you’re >>> asking doesn’t really make sense to me. A file descriptor is a software >>> abstraction built onto the hardware and the exact implementation changes >> from >>> case to case dependent on hardware. It’s like if I asked my doctor “give >> me >>> the exact limit of bicep curls I can do in an hour.” In the same way the >> body >>> has no conception of a bicep curl(only the fatigue from moving), the >> hardware >>> doesn’t know what you mean by a file descriptor(only the residual >> resources >>> needed to maintain one), and there’s like 20 ways of doing a bicep curl, >> so >>> demanding such a concrete hard limit number makes no sense. >>> >>> - Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:52 AM wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tue, January 30, 2024 11:23 am, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2024/01/30 10:53, beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > > > >> I see the confusion I made I am sorry, when I said routers crash I >> meant actual ISP
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
>I'm also not a OS dev >cannot the OS do some testing/benchmarking >to get a grasp on what the limit >could be? >YOU are the OS in your example, and you >would know the limit when you would do >curls slower and maybe you would get more >and more pain.. >and crash in your example would be your >muscle being in such pain you wouldn't >be able to do anything with your >arm/whatever So your body automatically benchmarks how many bicep curls you can do in an hour without you having to think about it? You use your body to measure the bicep curls it can do, it doesn’t automatically do that. You can use your OS to perform the benchmark, but to expect the OS to designate resources automatically to benchmark itself is equal portions naïve and obtuse. You have a very specific use-case, you should do the work to find your answer. On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:20 AM wrote: > I'm also not a OS dev > cannot the OS do some testing/benchmarking to get a grasp on what the limit > could be? > YOU are the OS in your example, and you would know the limit when you > would do > curls slower and maybe you would get more and more pain.. > and crash in your example would be your muscle being in such pain you > wouldn't > be able to do anything with your arm/whatever > > so you're saying the only fucking way to know a true hardware limit is the > worst that could be - a crash??? > what if crash doesn't happen right away? in my case hardware ISP router > could > be limiting the potential of i2pd software or torrenting software > boom corrupted data, processes, uncompleted important work, lost important > work, pain in ass, etc > literally couldn't that corrupt the entire system, a crash? > > tell me I am worrying too much, but even then a crash is the worst thing > someone can rely on, I think it's unprofessional that the OS allows for > that > sort of insecurity > if all you said and I said is correct, I consider that to be a security > vulnerability at least, not to mention other vulnerabilities > > On Tue, January 30, 2024 1:32 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: > > > like I asked and no one answered: where >>>can I check HARD LIMIT of > my > computer? > >>> > >>> you can't really. you can try increasing >>until you run into problems > > and back > >>> off a bit, but it probably depends on what >>else the kernel is doing. > > usual > >>> approach is to restrict the software to >>using the resources that you > > expect it > >>> to actually need and restrict it from making >>more demands than that > to > > orotect > >>> the rest of the system. > > > >> this sounds like a bug to me hard limit must be known, else is like > playing > >> >cards, you never know when > > you > >> lose (you crash) and no one answered my question yet about >i2pd's > >> connections to other > > routhers > >> with can well surpass 8192 up to +3 >connections, and if I am right > > then > >> each connection needs a FD? I worked with >networking and programming a > > little, > >> so this makes sense to me can anyone >verify? if yes, then yes this is > a bug > >> and I am >disappointed that the only way is > > to > >> run blindly and trust before crash > > > > I might be out of line here since I’m new to OS dev stuff, but what > you’re > > asking doesn’t really make sense to me. A file descriptor is a software > > abstraction built onto the hardware and the exact implementation changes > from > > case to case dependent on hardware. It’s like if I asked my doctor “give > me > > the exact limit of bicep curls I can do in an hour.” In the same way the > body > > has no conception of a bicep curl(only the fatigue from moving), the > hardware > > doesn’t know what you mean by a file descriptor(only the residual > resources > > needed to maintain one), and there’s like 20 ways of doing a bicep curl, > so > > demanding such a concrete hard limit number makes no sense. > > > > - Bruce > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:52 AM wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, January 30, 2024 11:23 am, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >> > >>> On 2024/01/30 10:53, beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > >>> > >>> > I see the confusion I made I am sorry, when I said routers crash I > meant actual ISP hardware routers. > >>> > >>> For an ISP "customer premises equipment" router (home/officr router)? > >>> That often means you made too many connections and exceeded the size of > >>> NAT/firewall state table that they can cope with. Also for ISPs with > >>> CGN, you might have a limited port-range that you're allowed to use and > >>> can't make more connections once that has been exceeded. > >> > >> is there way to verify it's the 1st thing, which can be fixed by custom > >> router, yes? any computer with 2 NICs can be a OpenBSD router, yes? I > seen > >> people do that, is cool > >> > >>> > like I asked and no one answered: where can I check HARD LIMIT of my > computer? > >>> > >>> you can't really. you can try increasing until you run into problems > and > >> back > >>> off
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
I'm also not a OS dev cannot the OS do some testing/benchmarking to get a grasp on what the limit could be? YOU are the OS in your example, and you would know the limit when you would do curls slower and maybe you would get more and more pain.. and crash in your example would be your muscle being in such pain you wouldn't be able to do anything with your arm/whatever so you're saying the only fucking way to know a true hardware limit is the worst that could be - a crash??? what if crash doesn't happen right away? in my case hardware ISP router could be limiting the potential of i2pd software or torrenting software boom corrupted data, processes, uncompleted important work, lost important work, pain in ass, etc literally couldn't that corrupt the entire system, a crash? tell me I am worrying too much, but even then a crash is the worst thing someone can rely on, I think it's unprofessional that the OS allows for that sort of insecurity if all you said and I said is correct, I consider that to be a security vulnerability at least, not to mention other vulnerabilities On Tue, January 30, 2024 1:32 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: like I asked and no one answered: where >>>can I check HARD LIMIT of my computer? >>> >>> you can't really. you can try increasing >>until you run into problems > and back >>> off a bit, but it probably depends on what >>else the kernel is doing. > usual >>> approach is to restrict the software to >>using the resources that you > expect it >>> to actually need and restrict it from making >>more demands than that to > orotect >>> the rest of the system. > >> this sounds like a bug to me hard limit must be known, else is like playing >> >cards, you never know when > you >> lose (you crash) and no one answered my question yet about >i2pd's >> connections to other > routhers >> with can well surpass 8192 up to +3 >connections, and if I am right > then >> each connection needs a FD? I worked with >networking and programming a > little, >> so this makes sense to me can anyone >verify? if yes, then yes this is a bug >> and I am >disappointed that the only way is > to >> run blindly and trust before crash > > I might be out of line here since I’m new to OS dev stuff, but what you’re > asking doesn’t really make sense to me. A file descriptor is a software > abstraction built onto the hardware and the exact implementation changes from > case to case dependent on hardware. It’s like if I asked my doctor “give me > the exact limit of bicep curls I can do in an hour.” In the same way the body > has no conception of a bicep curl(only the fatigue from moving), the hardware > doesn’t know what you mean by a file descriptor(only the residual resources > needed to maintain one), and there’s like 20 ways of doing a bicep curl, so > demanding such a concrete hard limit number makes no sense. > > - Bruce > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:52 AM wrote: > > >> On Tue, January 30, 2024 11:23 am, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> >>> On 2024/01/30 10:53, beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: >>> >>> I see the confusion I made I am sorry, when I said routers crash I meant actual ISP hardware routers. >>> >>> For an ISP "customer premises equipment" router (home/officr router)? >>> That often means you made too many connections and exceeded the size of >>> NAT/firewall state table that they can cope with. Also for ISPs with >>> CGN, you might have a limited port-range that you're allowed to use and >>> can't make more connections once that has been exceeded. >> >> is there way to verify it's the 1st thing, which can be fixed by custom >> router, yes? any computer with 2 NICs can be a OpenBSD router, yes? I seen >> people do that, is cool >> >>> like I asked and no one answered: where can I check HARD LIMIT of my computer? >>> >>> you can't really. you can try increasing until you run into problems and >> back >>> off a bit, but it probably depends on what else the kernel is doing. >> usual >>> approach is to restrict the software to using the resources that you >> expect it >>> to actually need and restrict it from making more demands than that to >> orotect >>> the rest of the system. >> >> this sounds like a bug to me hard limit must be known, else is like playing >> cards, you never know when you lose (you crash) and no one answered my >> question yet about i2pd's connections to other routhers with can well surpass >> 8192 up to +3 connections, and if I am right then >> each connection needs a FD? I worked with networking and programming a >> little, so this makes sense to me can anyone verify? if yes, then yes this is >> a bug and I am disappointed that the only way is to run blindly and trust >> before crash >> >>> what it depends on, on CPU? where is utility that shows max FDs, and per-running-process FD usage and their max setting? if this does not >> exist, I think why not? I think if user has to manually set FD limits and know potential of >> programs
Re: (changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
>>> >>> like I asked and no one answered: where >>>can I check HARD LIMIT of my >>> computer? >> >> you can't really. you can try increasing >>until you run into problems and back >> off a bit, but it probably depends on what >>else the kernel is doing. usual >> approach is to restrict the software to >>using the resources that you expect it >> to actually need and restrict it from making >>more demands than that to orotect >> the rest of the system. >this sounds like a bug to me >hard limit must be known, else is like playing >cards, you never know when you >lose (you crash) >and no one answered my question yet about >i2pd's connections to other routhers >with can well surpass 8192 up to +3 >connections, and if I am right then >each connection needs a FD? I worked with >networking and programming a little, >so this makes sense to me can anyone >verify? >if yes, then yes this is a bug and I am >disappointed that the only way is to >run blindly and trust before crash I might be out of line here since I’m new to OS dev stuff, but what you’re asking doesn’t really make sense to me. A file descriptor is a software abstraction built onto the hardware and the exact implementation changes from case to case dependent on hardware. It’s like if I asked my doctor “give me the exact limit of bicep curls I can do in an hour.” In the same way the body has no conception of a bicep curl(only the fatigue from moving), the hardware doesn’t know what you mean by a file descriptor(only the residual resources needed to maintain one), and there’s like 20 ways of doing a bicep curl, so demanding such a concrete hard limit number makes no sense. - Bruce On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:52 AM wrote: > On Tue, January 30, 2024 11:23 am, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2024/01/30 10:53, beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > > > >> I see the confusion I made I am sorry, when I said routers crash I meant > >> actual ISP hardware routers. > > > > For an ISP "customer premises equipment" router (home/officr router)? > > That often means you made too many connections and exceeded the size of > > NAT/firewall state table that they can cope with. Also for ISPs with > > CGN, you might have a limited port-range that you're allowed to use and > > can't make more connections once that has been exceeded. > > is there way to verify it's the 1st thing, which can be fixed by custom > router, yes? > any computer with 2 NICs can be a OpenBSD router, yes? I seen people do > that, > is cool > > > > >> like I asked and no one answered: where can I check HARD LIMIT of my > >> computer? > > > > you can't really. you can try increasing until you run into problems and > back > > off a bit, but it probably depends on what else the kernel is doing. > usual > > approach is to restrict the software to using the resources that you > expect it > > to actually need and restrict it from making more demands than that to > orotect > > the rest of the system. > > this sounds like a bug to me > hard limit must be known, else is like playing cards, you never know when > you > lose (you crash) > and no one answered my question yet about i2pd's connections to other > routhers > with can well surpass 8192 up to +3 connections, and if I am right then > each connection needs a FD? I worked with networking and programming a > little, > so this makes sense to me can anyone verify? > if yes, then yes this is a bug and I am disappointed that the only way is > to > run blindly and trust before crash > > > > >> what it depends on, on CPU? where is utility that shows max FDs, and > >> per-running-process FD usage and their max setting? if this does not > exist, > >> I think why not? > >> I think if user has to manually set FD limits and know potential of > programs > >> and OpenBSD and hardware, where is utility to help with that? I did > search > >> on the internet, all shit.. > > > > fstat shows per-process FD use, but the kernel backend for it is a bit > buggy > > and can sometimes crash the kernel, so it is best to avoid running it on > an > > important system. > > > > > > oh really > I probably cannot verify the usage of I2Pd if it exceeds 8192 because my > router goes stupid and crashes, can you? > if you can't I'll give it a try, please tell me if you can.. I would try > increasing bandwidth speed to X and transit tunnels to maybe 10k, try with > a > floodfill maybe, too.. because even many tunnels - there can be many to 1 > i2pd > peer(i2pd router) which translates to 1 FD, right? > and if you go to web console of i2pd and go to Transit Tunnels tab, you > can see > => [some number like ID] 5.0 KiB, and then you see more of same, but the > arrow > '=>' is not there, so that maybe indicates it's the same peer/i2pd router > that > the following tunnels are to/from.. most have 1 tunnel, some have 6 > tunnels, a > lot have 2 tunnels > > but I am not getting FD count with fstat, the number is not the same with > 'Routers' in web console of i2pd, so maybe I was wrong > or
(changed subject) Re: net/i2pd: FD talk and limits and ISP routers too weak maybe
On Tue, January 30, 2024 11:23 am, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2024/01/30 10:53, beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > >> I see the confusion I made I am sorry, when I said routers crash I meant >> actual ISP hardware routers. > > For an ISP "customer premises equipment" router (home/officr router)? > That often means you made too many connections and exceeded the size of > NAT/firewall state table that they can cope with. Also for ISPs with > CGN, you might have a limited port-range that you're allowed to use and > can't make more connections once that has been exceeded. is there way to verify it's the 1st thing, which can be fixed by custom router, yes? any computer with 2 NICs can be a OpenBSD router, yes? I seen people do that, is cool > >> like I asked and no one answered: where can I check HARD LIMIT of my >> computer? > > you can't really. you can try increasing until you run into problems and back > off a bit, but it probably depends on what else the kernel is doing. usual > approach is to restrict the software to using the resources that you expect it > to actually need and restrict it from making more demands than that to orotect > the rest of the system. this sounds like a bug to me hard limit must be known, else is like playing cards, you never know when you lose (you crash) and no one answered my question yet about i2pd's connections to other routhers with can well surpass 8192 up to +3 connections, and if I am right then each connection needs a FD? I worked with networking and programming a little, so this makes sense to me can anyone verify? if yes, then yes this is a bug and I am disappointed that the only way is to run blindly and trust before crash > >> what it depends on, on CPU? where is utility that shows max FDs, and >> per-running-process FD usage and their max setting? if this does not exist, >> I think why not? >> I think if user has to manually set FD limits and know potential of programs >> and OpenBSD and hardware, where is utility to help with that? I did search >> on the internet, all shit.. > > fstat shows per-process FD use, but the kernel backend for it is a bit buggy > and can sometimes crash the kernel, so it is best to avoid running it on an > important system. > > oh really I probably cannot verify the usage of I2Pd if it exceeds 8192 because my router goes stupid and crashes, can you? if you can't I'll give it a try, please tell me if you can.. I would try increasing bandwidth speed to X and transit tunnels to maybe 10k, try with a floodfill maybe, too.. because even many tunnels - there can be many to 1 i2pd peer(i2pd router) which translates to 1 FD, right? and if you go to web console of i2pd and go to Transit Tunnels tab, you can see => [some number like ID] 5.0 KiB, and then you see more of same, but the arrow '=>' is not there, so that maybe indicates it's the same peer/i2pd router that the following tunnels are to/from.. most have 1 tunnel, some have 6 tunnels, a lot have 2 tunnels but I am not getting FD count with fstat, the number is not the same with 'Routers' in web console of i2pd, so maybe I was wrong or maybe i2pd recycles FDs to be much better at efficiency so it has Routers stored addresses somewhere, and makes connections only if needed (which take up FD spots) - best regards, I like talking to you, you care about this and want to help, it can be seen
