[freenet-support] Is it my system, or had builds 1208-1209 have severe performance issues?
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 18:29:47 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Matthew Toseland > wrote: > > On Friday 08 May 2009 17:40:58 Juiceman wrote: > >> >> Weird. ?node.db4o was an insane 375 MB. ?I deleted it and and added a > >> >> bunch of downloads. ?Now it is less than 10 MB. ?That definitely > >> >> helped some with the disk thrashing. > >> >> > >> >> I think I found the main problem, and I'm embarrassed to say > >> >> apparantly I had xmlspider plugin running and writing GB+ files to the > >> >> same disk the node resides on. ?I turned this off and the disk usage > >> >> became manageable. > >> >> > >> >> I also upgraded my HDD from an older 2 MB cache model to one with 16 > >> >> MB and now Freenet is zipping along nicely. > >> >> > >> >> I did see some errors in the log so I am sending it to Toad for review. > >> >> > >> >> P.S. I would recommend not installing the xmlspider by default on > > installs. > >> >> > >> >> Victor - might this be your issue as well? > >> > > >> > ROFL. So that just leaves victor... > >> > >> Is it normal that node.db4o never shrinks? ?I have completed all the > >> downloads I had running and removed them from the page, yet node.db4o > >> doesn't get smaller. ?I have rebooted the node also. ?This IMHO is bad > >> because it will eventually kill performance with disk access... > > > > Yes, the only way to ensure it shrinks is to defrag it. This is on the todo > > list, but it does not seem urgent to me. Is it really a huge, monstrous, > > evil, all-consuming problem more urgent than the 500 other things we have to > > deal with? > > I see two issues. First, my node.db4o has broken 100MiB. That's not > a problem, but eventually it would be. I can deal with this by > emptying my download / upload queues, deleting it, and re-adding any > keys, but that's annoying. It's not urgent, but an option to defrag > at startup would be nice if it doesn't take too much of your time. > > Second issue is a minor security thing. I'm probably less paranoid > than most Freenet users, but I would like to know that after I > download a file, the traces left behind by doing so are well defined. > That would include the file itself and the fact that its blocks are in > my cache. I'd rather not also have that info in the node.db4o file > (is it encrypted?). Again, not urgent, but worth dealing with > eventually. The truly paranoid will have motion detectors that > unmount their encrypted filesystems and start scrubbing RAM before the > Bad Guys (TM) can sit down at the keyboard, right? > > Evan Daniel On Thursday 14 May 2009 01:54:02 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > Or have the node automatically delete it when the queues are empty? Automatically deleting node.db4o when there is nothing queued might work. The main problem is that we would then not be able to put things other than queued requests into it. Meaning if we want to persist e.g. stats, passive requests etc, we will need a separate database. We don't encrypt node.db4o at present. We should have the option of encrypting it for those who don't want to encrypt the whole drive, but then we would need a way to ask the user for the password on startup, or put it in some easily shreddable file (shredding files doesn't work with modern filesystems). But for the really paranoid, db4o is a bit of a PITA. There is no way we can guarantee that no traces of old requests are present, because db4o doesn't have garbage collection. All we can say is we've tested it and debugged the leaks found by the tests. But it is certainly possible for bugs introduced since then, or not found, to cause leakage of objects. -- 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/support/attachments/20090515/69b0bd39/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] Is it my system, or had builds 1208-1209 have severe performance issues?
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 18:29:47 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Matthew Toseland > wrote: > > On Friday 08 May 2009 17:40:58 Juiceman wrote: > >> >> Weird. ?node.db4o was an insane 375 MB. ?I deleted it and and added a > >> >> bunch of downloads. ?Now it is less than 10 MB. ?That definitely > >> >> helped some with the disk thrashing. > >> >> > >> >> I think I found the main problem, and I'm embarrassed to say > >> >> apparantly I had xmlspider plugin running and writing GB+ files to the > >> >> same disk the node resides on. ?I turned this off and the disk usage > >> >> became manageable. > >> >> > >> >> I also upgraded my HDD from an older 2 MB cache model to one with 16 > >> >> MB and now Freenet is zipping along nicely. > >> >> > >> >> I did see some errors in the log so I am sending it to Toad for review. > >> >> > >> >> P.S. I would recommend not installing the xmlspider by default on > > installs. > >> >> > >> >> Victor - might this be your issue as well? > >> > > >> > ROFL. So that just leaves victor... > >> > >> Is it normal that node.db4o never shrinks? ?I have completed all the > >> downloads I had running and removed them from the page, yet node.db4o > >> doesn't get smaller. ?I have rebooted the node also. ?This IMHO is bad > >> because it will eventually kill performance with disk access... > > > > Yes, the only way to ensure it shrinks is to defrag it. This is on the todo > > list, but it does not seem urgent to me. Is it really a huge, monstrous, > > evil, all-consuming problem more urgent than the 500 other things we have to > > deal with? > > I see two issues. First, my node.db4o has broken 100MiB. That's not > a problem, but eventually it would be. I can deal with this by > emptying my download / upload queues, deleting it, and re-adding any > keys, but that's annoying. It's not urgent, but an option to defrag > at startup would be nice if it doesn't take too much of your time. > How much have you had in your queue so far? -- 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/support/attachments/20090515/2a2a41cd/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] Bug report: 1 peers forcibly disconnected due to not acknowledging packets
On Saturday 02 May 2009 11:09:37 theymos wrote: > Freenet asked me to report this bug to you. I'm on Freenet 0.7 Build #1209 rbuild01209-real, Freenet-ext Build #26 r23771. I just updated to 1209 a few hours ago. I updated using update.cmd because the built-in update wasn't working. > > Probably a bug: please report: 1 peers forcibly disconnected due to not acknowledging packets. > 1 of your peers are having severe problems (not acknowledging packets even after 10 minutes). This is probably due to a bug in the code. Please report it to us at the bug tracker at https://bugs.freenetproject.org/ or to the support mailing list support at freenetproject.org. Please include this message and what version of the node you are running. The affected peers (you may not want to include this in your bug report if they are darknet peers) are: > I might just have fixed this in git... -- 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/support/attachments/20090515/64113abd/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] Is it my system, or had builds 1208-1209 have severe performance issues?
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Wednesday 13 May 2009 18:29:47 Evan Daniel wrote: >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Matthew Toseland >> wrote: >> > On Friday 08 May 2009 17:40:58 Juiceman wrote: >> >> >> Weird. ?node.db4o was an insane 375 MB. ?I deleted it and and added a >> >> >> bunch of downloads. ?Now it is less than 10 MB. ?That definitely >> >> >> helped some with the disk thrashing. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think I found the main problem, and I'm embarrassed to say >> >> >> apparantly I had xmlspider plugin running and writing GB+ files to the >> >> >> same disk the node resides on. ?I turned this off and the disk usage >> >> >> became manageable. >> >> >> >> >> >> I also upgraded my HDD from an older 2 MB cache model to one with 16 >> >> >> MB and now Freenet is zipping along nicely. >> >> >> >> >> >> I did see some errors in the log so I am sending it to Toad for > review. >> >> >> >> >> >> P.S. I would recommend not installing the xmlspider by default on >> > installs. >> >> >> >> >> >> Victor - might this be your issue as well? >> >> > >> >> > ROFL. So that just leaves victor... >> >> >> >> Is it normal that node.db4o never shrinks? ?I have completed all the >> >> downloads I had running and removed them from the page, yet node.db4o >> >> doesn't get smaller. ?I have rebooted the node also. ?This IMHO is bad >> >> because it will eventually kill performance with disk access... >> > >> > Yes, the only way to ensure it shrinks is to defrag it. This is on the > todo >> > list, but it does not seem urgent to me. Is it really a huge, monstrous, >> > evil, all-consuming problem more urgent than the 500 other things we have > to >> > deal with? >> >> I see two issues. ?First, my node.db4o has broken 100MiB. ?That's not >> a problem, but eventually it would be. ?I can deal with this by >> emptying my download / upload queues, deleting it, and re-adding any >> keys, but that's annoying. ?It's not urgent, but an option to defrag >> at startup would be nice if it doesn't take too much of your time. >> > How much have you had in your queue so far? > About 3GiB, maybe a little less. Evan Daniel
[freenet-support] Error loading KeyExplorer
I got this error : Le plugin KeyExplorer n'a pas pu ?tre charg? : could not find class def, may a missing lib? I've tried reinstalling Freenet but I always got this error. I think I've miss something, It's a fresh new install of Debian Lenny. Thanks for help Attention ? l?indigestion de rire sur video.voila.fr ! http://video.voila.fr/
[freenet-support] Error loading KeyExplorer
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:30:05 +0200 (CEST), websponsor at voila.fr wrote: > I got this error : Le plugin KeyExplorer n'a pas pu ?tre charg? : > could not find class def, may a missing lib? > > I've tried reinstalling Freenet but I always got this error. > I think I've miss something, It's a fresh new install of Debian Lenny. Check your wrapper.log file in your freenet directory. That will provide specific details as to what is missing.
Re: [freenet-support] Is it my system, or had builds 1208-1209 have severe performance issues?
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 18:29:47 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Matthew Toseland > wrote: > > On Friday 08 May 2009 17:40:58 Juiceman wrote: > >> >> Weird. node.db4o was an insane 375 MB. I deleted it and and added a > >> >> bunch of downloads. Now it is less than 10 MB. That definitely > >> >> helped some with the disk thrashing. > >> >> > >> >> I think I found the main problem, and I'm embarrassed to say > >> >> apparantly I had xmlspider plugin running and writing GB+ files to the > >> >> same disk the node resides on. I turned this off and the disk usage > >> >> became manageable. > >> >> > >> >> I also upgraded my HDD from an older 2 MB cache model to one with 16 > >> >> MB and now Freenet is zipping along nicely. > >> >> > >> >> I did see some errors in the log so I am sending it to Toad for review. > >> >> > >> >> P.S. I would recommend not installing the xmlspider by default on > > installs. > >> >> > >> >> Victor - might this be your issue as well? > >> > > >> > ROFL. So that just leaves victor... > >> > >> Is it normal that node.db4o never shrinks? I have completed all the > >> downloads I had running and removed them from the page, yet node.db4o > >> doesn't get smaller. I have rebooted the node also. This IMHO is bad > >> because it will eventually kill performance with disk access... > > > > Yes, the only way to ensure it shrinks is to defrag it. This is on the todo > > list, but it does not seem urgent to me. Is it really a huge, monstrous, > > evil, all-consuming problem more urgent than the 500 other things we have to > > deal with? > > I see two issues. First, my node.db4o has broken 100MiB. That's not > a problem, but eventually it would be. I can deal with this by > emptying my download / upload queues, deleting it, and re-adding any > keys, but that's annoying. It's not urgent, but an option to defrag > at startup would be nice if it doesn't take too much of your time. > > Second issue is a minor security thing. I'm probably less paranoid > than most Freenet users, but I would like to know that after I > download a file, the traces left behind by doing so are well defined. > That would include the file itself and the fact that its blocks are in > my cache. I'd rather not also have that info in the node.db4o file > (is it encrypted?). Again, not urgent, but worth dealing with > eventually. The truly paranoid will have motion detectors that > unmount their encrypted filesystems and start scrubbing RAM before the > Bad Guys (TM) can sit down at the keyboard, right? > > Evan Daniel On Thursday 14 May 2009 01:54:02 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > Or have the node automatically delete it when the queues are empty? Automatically deleting node.db4o when there is nothing queued might work. The main problem is that we would then not be able to put things other than queued requests into it. Meaning if we want to persist e.g. stats, passive requests etc, we will need a separate database. We don't encrypt node.db4o at present. We should have the option of encrypting it for those who don't want to encrypt the whole drive, but then we would need a way to ask the user for the password on startup, or put it in some easily shreddable file (shredding files doesn't work with modern filesystems). But for the really paranoid, db4o is a bit of a PITA. There is no way we can guarantee that no traces of old requests are present, because db4o doesn't have garbage collection. All we can say is we've tested it and debugged the leaks found by the tests. But it is certainly possible for bugs introduced since then, or not found, to cause leakage of objects. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Is it my system, or had builds 1208-1209 have severe performance issues?
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 18:29:47 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Matthew Toseland > wrote: > > On Friday 08 May 2009 17:40:58 Juiceman wrote: > >> >> Weird. node.db4o was an insane 375 MB. I deleted it and and added a > >> >> bunch of downloads. Now it is less than 10 MB. That definitely > >> >> helped some with the disk thrashing. > >> >> > >> >> I think I found the main problem, and I'm embarrassed to say > >> >> apparantly I had xmlspider plugin running and writing GB+ files to the > >> >> same disk the node resides on. I turned this off and the disk usage > >> >> became manageable. > >> >> > >> >> I also upgraded my HDD from an older 2 MB cache model to one with 16 > >> >> MB and now Freenet is zipping along nicely. > >> >> > >> >> I did see some errors in the log so I am sending it to Toad for review. > >> >> > >> >> P.S. I would recommend not installing the xmlspider by default on > > installs. > >> >> > >> >> Victor - might this be your issue as well? > >> > > >> > ROFL. So that just leaves victor... > >> > >> Is it normal that node.db4o never shrinks? I have completed all the > >> downloads I had running and removed them from the page, yet node.db4o > >> doesn't get smaller. I have rebooted the node also. This IMHO is bad > >> because it will eventually kill performance with disk access... > > > > Yes, the only way to ensure it shrinks is to defrag it. This is on the todo > > list, but it does not seem urgent to me. Is it really a huge, monstrous, > > evil, all-consuming problem more urgent than the 500 other things we have to > > deal with? > > I see two issues. First, my node.db4o has broken 100MiB. That's not > a problem, but eventually it would be. I can deal with this by > emptying my download / upload queues, deleting it, and re-adding any > keys, but that's annoying. It's not urgent, but an option to defrag > at startup would be nice if it doesn't take too much of your time. > How much have you had in your queue so far? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Bug report: 1 peers forcibly disconnected due to not acknowledging packets
On Saturday 02 May 2009 11:09:37 theymos wrote: > Freenet asked me to report this bug to you. I'm on Freenet 0.7 Build #1209 rbuild01209-real, Freenet-ext Build #26 r23771. I just updated to 1209 a few hours ago. I updated using update.cmd because the built-in update wasn't working. > > Probably a bug: please report: 1 peers forcibly disconnected due to not acknowledging packets. > 1 of your peers are having severe problems (not acknowledging packets even after 10 minutes). This is probably due to a bug in the code. Please report it to us at the bug tracker at https://bugs.freenetproject.org/ or to the support mailing list supp...@freenetproject.org. Please include this message and what version of the node you are running. The affected peers (you may not want to include this in your bug report if they are darknet peers) are: > I might just have fixed this in git... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Is it my system, or had builds 1208-1209 have severe performance issues?
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Wednesday 13 May 2009 18:29:47 Evan Daniel wrote: >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Matthew Toseland >> wrote: >> > On Friday 08 May 2009 17:40:58 Juiceman wrote: >> >> >> Weird. node.db4o was an insane 375 MB. I deleted it and and added a >> >> >> bunch of downloads. Now it is less than 10 MB. That definitely >> >> >> helped some with the disk thrashing. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think I found the main problem, and I'm embarrassed to say >> >> >> apparantly I had xmlspider plugin running and writing GB+ files to the >> >> >> same disk the node resides on. I turned this off and the disk usage >> >> >> became manageable. >> >> >> >> >> >> I also upgraded my HDD from an older 2 MB cache model to one with 16 >> >> >> MB and now Freenet is zipping along nicely. >> >> >> >> >> >> I did see some errors in the log so I am sending it to Toad for > review. >> >> >> >> >> >> P.S. I would recommend not installing the xmlspider by default on >> > installs. >> >> >> >> >> >> Victor - might this be your issue as well? >> >> > >> >> > ROFL. So that just leaves victor... >> >> >> >> Is it normal that node.db4o never shrinks? I have completed all the >> >> downloads I had running and removed them from the page, yet node.db4o >> >> doesn't get smaller. I have rebooted the node also. This IMHO is bad >> >> because it will eventually kill performance with disk access... >> > >> > Yes, the only way to ensure it shrinks is to defrag it. This is on the > todo >> > list, but it does not seem urgent to me. Is it really a huge, monstrous, >> > evil, all-consuming problem more urgent than the 500 other things we have > to >> > deal with? >> >> I see two issues. First, my node.db4o has broken 100MiB. That's not >> a problem, but eventually it would be. I can deal with this by >> emptying my download / upload queues, deleting it, and re-adding any >> keys, but that's annoying. It's not urgent, but an option to defrag >> at startup would be nice if it doesn't take too much of your time. >> > How much have you had in your queue so far? > About 3GiB, maybe a little less. Evan Daniel ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
[freenet-support] Error loading KeyExplorer
I got this error : Le plugin KeyExplorer n'a pas pu être chargé : could not find class def, may a missing lib? I've tried reinstalling Freenet but I always got this error. I think I've miss something, It's a fresh new install of Debian Lenny. Thanks for help Attention à l’indigestion de rire sur video.voila.fr ! http://video.voila.fr/ ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Error loading KeyExplorer
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:30:05 +0200 (CEST), webspon...@voila.fr wrote: > I got this error : Le plugin KeyExplorer n'a pas pu être chargé : > could not find class def, may a missing lib? > > I've tried reinstalling Freenet but I always got this error. > I think I've miss something, It's a fresh new install of Debian Lenny. Check your wrapper.log file in your freenet directory. That will provide specific details as to what is missing. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
