Re: [freenet-support] Usability improvement ideas
On Friday 31 October 2003 07:37, Ian Clarke wrote: So, this email is an invitation to anyone that has constructive criticism or suggestion's for how Freenet's first impression can be enhanced. Topics include installation, FProxy, even the website's layout. Ian. The splitfile interface provides a useful measure of progress or at least continued activity. How about something to give users a little feedback while other key types are being retrieved? Browsers generally provide some kind of indication of progress, but some just lie (IE) and if there's no progress in bytes retrieved, many users new to Freenet will likely assume nothing is happening and either try another key or give up even though productive activity is happening behind the scenes. My host here has about 80MB of data constantly queued for transmission over 100 or more connections sharing a 15kB uplink. I find myself wondering who will wait for any of this to arrive and how much of this queue will actually arrive at a client instead of being aborted. I suspect such failed attempts probably degrade the overall network performance a bit, so a progress indicator might help the network as a whole by reducing accesses truncated due to impatience. Good on you for asking for suggestions! ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] Now logged in as MikaMikado on freenetproject.org
But I'm not that person, FYI. -- Americans generally do the right thing, after first exhausting all the available alternatives. - Winston Churchill ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] ADSL chaos issue
Greetings, I'm reposting an earlier reply to Matthew about an issue that I'm still puzzling over. I think Matthew may not have noticed my reply, and I think his original reply to my original post about dealing with asymmetric connections replicates a mistaken conclusion that I also made. If I'm off-track on all of this I apologize for wasting time, but I think there's a complication regarding the nature of ADSL that may lead to disappointing network performance. snip edited for brevity better clarity As I understand it, some requests arriving at my node are forwarded to other nodes, with the results being passed back through my node toward the original requester. If my inbound connecton is 2X, and my outbound connection is 1X, this means that data going _across_ my node can arrive at my node at twice the rate it can leave my node. If the results of data requests that cross my site can arrive at my site much faster than they can then leave on their way to their ultimate destination, it seems that I must _base_my_inbound_bandwidth_settings_strictly_on my_outbound_speed. Put another way, the trouble with relaying and ADSL is that since packets requesting data are presumably smaller than the resulting data packets coming back, it seems easily possible that a node will happily accept and forward many more request packets than it's truly capable of dealing with. If the results of request packets are larger than the request packets themselves, constipation will always result if the inbound bandwidth settings are not arranged strictly on outbound connection speed. Even more simply expressed, it seems to this ignorant user that if a node is capable of requesting data for relay far faster than it can actually pass it back through the network, chaos will surely be the result. Based on the assumption that the total bulk of request packets is smaller than total data packet bulk, it seems that ADSL users may in fact have to set incoming bandwidth _smaller_ than outgoing bandwidth, counterintuitive though this may seem. If all of this is true, maybe it would be a good idea to emphasize to ADSL node operators that they have to account for this in bandwidth settings. Further, is it possible to estimate based on data packet vs. request packet size some rough idea of what incoming vs outgoing bandwidth settings should be? -- Americans generally do the right thing, after first exhausting all the available alternatives. - Winston Churchill ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] ADSL chaos issue
On Thursday 21 November 2002 10:14 am, you wrote: On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:26:10AM -0500, Doug Bostrom wrote: Greetings, (blah blah) As I understand it, some requests arriving at my node are forwarded to other nodes, with the results being passed back through my node toward the original requester. If my inbound connecton is 2X, and my outbound connection is 1X, this means that data going _across_ my node can arrive at my node at twice the rate it can leave my node. If the results of data requests that cross my site can arrive at my site much faster than they can then leave on their way to their ultimate destination, it seems that I must _base_my_inbound_bandwidth_settings_strictly_on my_outbound_speed. Bullshit. I have a node with asymmetrical limits. So does almost everyone else. It's not a problem. The data will get buffered, if it's small, and throttled, if it's large. That's in the rare case that a single connection comes _anywhere close_ to the upload bandwidth. In nearly all cases the upload bandwidth will be saturated by a single successful locally satisfied request for the period of time that request is being fufilled, since obviously retrieval from the local disk store is faster than most outbound connections. In the case of ADSL and relaying it's often going to be the case that the inbound connection is attempting to supply data faster than the outbound connection can deal with it. So it's hardly a rare case that a single connection comes _anywhere close_ to the upload bandwidth. Moving on, what about multiple connections? Does a node only instantiate a single relay at any given time? And is it the case that the number of relay connections being supported will automatically insure that the period of time that data is buffered will not grow so long that the relay connection fails for the practical purpose of transporting data in a reasonably timely fashion? Is the number of relay connections formed modulated by the current buffer size and outbound bandwidth constraints? Based on what you say, unless the logic for accepting connections and throttling knows something about the size of requests being fulfilled, a node supporting steady traffic seems at risk of developing an ever-growing buffer or throttling to the point of being practically useless. Put another way, the trouble with relaying and ADSL is that since packets requesting data are presumably smaller than the resulting data packets coming back, it seems easily possible that a node will happily accept and forward many more request packets than it's truly capable of dealing with. If the results of request packets are larger than the request packets themselves, constipation will always result if the inbound bandwidth settings are not arranged strictly on outbound connection speed. It's not just ADSL. EVERYONE, except for a few people who don't mind spending as much on bandwidth as on their car(s), has an asymmetrical connection. And it really isn't a big problem. Freenet will buffer, or it will throttle. In most cases it will buffer, since we are keeping the file anyway if it's more than 1/200th the datastore size (i.e. a meg on the default storeSize). It reads it in from the source node to the datastore at some rate, and it writes it out to the requestor node at a different rate. It was always going to cache the file, so there is no big deal. But even when we get into circular buffers, and even when we overflow the circular buffers (which is rare unless you have a ridiculously small store), it will end up throttling the incoming connection just by refusing to ACK any more packets when the buffer is full. I don't understand. In the case of a node with a steady load of connections that are consistently retrieving more data than can be uploaded from the node, how does this become reasonably transparent to users? Does the refusal to ACK incoming data packets for relay also trigger a refusal to accept new relay connections? Even more simply expressed, it seems to this ignorant user that if a node is capable of requesting data for relay far faster than it can actually pass it back through the network, chaos will surely be the result. Nope. It will not. Chaos was a poor choice of words. Based on your description what's going on, maybe ballooning retrieval times would say it better. Based on the assumption that the total bulk of request packets is smaller than total data packet bulk, it seems that ADSL users may in fact have to set incoming bandwidth _smaller_ than outgoing bandwidth, counterintuitive though this may seem. Eh? Again, I expressed myself poorly. I should have suggested that the number of connections a node accepts, particularly for relay, is going to have to be based on some notion of what the resulting traffic outbound from the node is going to be, since a single connection can easily saturate the outbound bandwidth
Re: [freenet-support] Whining again about bandwidth
11/13/02 4:42:36 PM, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have things pinched off to 10K up and down, on the premise that since we're on ADSL here I can't allow more That's the combined limit or the individual limits? Individual. I use 20k down, 5k up, on a 512/128 cable modem (I have three nodes in this configuration on the same machine, but they're not heavily loaded). Are you sure you aren't running any other bandwidth hogging apps? If you set it to 5k up, does the situation improve? No other apps taking bandwidth. Is it correct to conclude that if I'm on ADSL and I fail to take account of the asymmetric nature of the connection that problems can result? To wit: As I understand it, some requests arriving at my node are forwarded to other nodes, with the results being passed back through my node. If my inbound connecton is 2X, and my outbound connection is 1X, this means that data going _across_ my node can arrive at my node at twice the rate it can leave my node. In other words, data can transit my site based on Freenet's method of protection by indirection, and if the results of data requests that transit my site can arrive at my site much faster than they can then leave on their way to their ultimate destination, it seems that I must base my inbound bandwidth settings strictly on my outbound speed. Put yet another way, the trouble with the transit thing and ADSL is that since protocol packets requesting data are presumably smaller than the resulting data packets coming back, it seems easily possible that a node will happily accept and forward request packets and then attempt to relay far more resulting data packets than it's capable of dealing with if the inbound bandwidth settings are not arranged strictly on outbound connection speed. Is this a correct interpretation, or is the bandwidth control smart enough to account for ADSL peculiarities? I suppose another upshot of ADSL is that my local datastore can be posted to many times faster than it can be retrieved from, but that does not seem such a large potential problem as the transit issue. ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] Whining again about bandwidth
Greetings, 534 seems to be running just great. For me there's just one remaining problem, which is that I still don't seem to be able to get bandwidth under control. I have things pinched off to 10K up and down, on the premise that since we're on ADSL here I can't allow more relayed data inward than my upstream connection can push out. There's some confusion about whether we're 128k or 384k upstream. Our service agreement says 384k, but maybe that's on a good day with a tailwind; most of the time the upstream connection performs like 128k. So I'm erring on the safe side and setting things at 10K, which seems only marginally useful but ought to work and leave some overhead for other services to negotiate connections. Our pipe is still saturated after a few hours of freenet uptime. My spouse and I both work at home at least 50% of the time. Yesterday I absentmindedly referred to shutting down the freenet node here when Ann was desperately trying to get some work done. Big mistake! Busted! Now of course when things are slow I'm getting the question you don't have that THING turned on again, do you?, heh. Does bandwidth control take into account relayed data, ie data transiting my node as a result of indirection? And do you have any further tips I might apply to getting this to work? Very frustrating to see things working so well that I can't support a persistent node anymore! Thanks for any help that may be forthcoming. -- Democracies die behind closed doors. - Judge Damon Keith ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] firewall configuration
The internal IP address will have to be that of the box actually running the node, not the firewall's internal address. Also don't forget that with that model firewall you'll need to reboot it once virtual server changes are made. On Monday 04 November 2002 09:01 pm, you wrote: Im new to the mailing list, and hoping you all are patient with the ignorant. Id like to set up a 24x7 node, but my firewall isnt cooperating. I have a D-Link DI704P unit and have enabled a virtual server to port 12059 with my firewalls internal IP address. However, looking at the firewall log, I see a whole lotta this: 11/2/2002 8:59:46 AM Unrecognized access from 128.119.77.212:38158 to TCP port 12059 11/2/2002 9:00:10 AM Unrecognized access from 128.119.77.212:38158 to TCP port 12059 11/2/2002 9:00:58 AM Unrecognized access from 128.119.77.212:38158 to TCP port 12059 11/2/2002 9:01:10 AM Unrecognized access from 168.122.150.103:45365 to TCP port 12059 11/2/2002 9:01:13 AM Unrecognized access from 168.122.150.103:45365 to TCP port 12059 11/2/2002 9:01:19 AM Unrecognized access from 168.122.150.103:45365 to TCP port 12059 11/2/2002 9:01:31 AM Unrecognized access from 168.122.150.103:45365 to TCP port 12059 11/2/2002 9:02:02 AM Unrecognized access from 80.137.184.219:34452 to TCP port 12059 11/2/2002 9:02:05 AM Unrecognized access from 80.137.184.219:34452 to TCP port 12059 11/2/2002 9:02:11 AM Unrecognized access from 80.137.184.219:34452 to TCP port 12059 11/2/2002 9:02:23 AM Unrecognized access from 80.137.184.219:34452 to TCP port 12059 Im also seeing a lot of errors in servlets in the Freenet log: net.node.Main, main): loading service: mainport Nov 2, 2002 8:31:33 AM (freenet.node.Node, main): Starting ticker.. Nov 2, 2002 8:31:33 AM (freenet.node.Node, main): Starting interfaces.. Nov 2, 2002 8:35:06 AM (freenet.interfaces.servlet.MultipleHttpServletContainer, QThread-18): I/O error in servlet Nov 2, 2002 8:35:06 AM (freenet.interfaces.servlet.MultipleHttpServletContainer, QThread-18): I/O error in servlet Nov 2, 2002 8:35:06 AM (freenet.interfaces.servlet.MultipleHttpServletContainer, QThread-18): I/O error in servlet Nov 2, 2002 8:35:06 AM (freenet.interfaces.servlet.MultipleHttpServletContainer, QThread-18): I/O error in servlet Nov 2, 2002 8:35:06 AM (freenet.interfaces.servlet.MultipleHttpServletContainer, QThread-18): I/O error in servlet Nov 2, 2002 8:35:12 AM (freenet.interfaces.servlet.MultipleHttpServletContainer, QThread-4): I/O error in servlet Nov 2, 2002 8:35:20 AM (freenet.client.http.FproxyServlet, QThread-8): Error sending data to browser: java.net.SocketException: Connection reset by peer: socket write error Nov 2, 2002 8:35:20 AM (freenet.interfaces.servlet.MultipleHttpServletContainer, QThread-8): I/O error in servlet Nov 2, 2002 8:35:30 AM (freenet.client.http.FproxyServlet, QThread-7): Error sending data to browser: java.net.SocketException: Connection reset by peer: socket write error Nov 2, 2002 8:35:30 AM (freenet.interfaces.servlet.MultipleHttpServletContainer, QThread-7): I/O error in servlet Nov 2, 2002 8:38:08 AM (freenet.client.http.FproxyServlet, QThread-5): Error sending data to browser: java.net.SocketException: Connection reset by peer: socket write error Nov 2, 2002 8:38:08 AM (freenet.interfaces.servlet.MultipleHttpServletContainer, QThread-5): I/O error in servlet Nov 2, 2002 9:05:24 AM (freenet.client.http.FproxyServlet, QThread-102): Error sending data to browser: java.net.SocketException: Connection aborted by peer: socket write error Nov 2, 2002 9:05:24 AM (freenet.interfaces.servlet.MultipleHttpServletContainer, QThread-102): I/O error in servlet -- Sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures. - George W. Bush ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] 24/7 node
You need to set transient=false. You may also want to set overloadlow=.60 and overloadhigh=.65 -- Democracies die behind closed doors. - Judge Damon Keith ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] 24/7 node
11/2/02 4:41:37 PM, Silver Tear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know transient=false has to be set, thats not the problem. The problem is once it is set to be a 24/7 node, it won't accept any connections from me. The reason I mention transient is that in the config file you included in your mail it is set true. ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] 24/7 node
11/2/02 3:54:02 PM, Darren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: overloadlow? overloadhigh? Are these new/undocumented settings? I am using http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Main/CLO as my freenet.conf reference...is there a better location? overloadhigh and overloadlow are in the config file, at least in the linux version. Using these settings I can run a permanent node without losing the use of my net connection for everything else. Kudos to Gianni Johansson for tipping this... ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] Protocol for stopping/restarting?
Questions regarding the correct method to stop and restart a node. This morning I upgraded to 604 and started it, and it runs very well. I stopped the node to reload some relaxed paramenters in freenet.conf and then restarted it, all within about 30 seconds or a minute. As soon as the node became active, it spawned large numbers of java processes, sucked up all CPU time and the pipe here became jammed. I stopped the node, then took a look via tcpdump at what was coming in. Lots of orphaned traffic from other nodes. Is it possible that if a node is restarted too quickly it will become confused by other nodes attempting to continue sessions that were started in the previous instance of the node? If that's the case, is it reasonable to assume that the minimum announce delay for a persistent node should be longer than the maximum amount of time other nodes will attempt to continue sesssions with a prior instance of the local node? In my case I've got the announce time set down to 3 minutes since the node is persistent and I (theoretically) very rarely stop it. Slap me if I'm breaking something! ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] Protocol for stopping/restarting?
On Thursday 31 October 2002 10:34 am, you wrote: Questions regarding the correct method to stop and restart a node. This morning I upgraded to 604 and started it, and it runs very well. I stopped the node to reload some relaxed paramenters in freenet.conf and then restarted it, all within about 30 seconds or a minute. As soon as the node became active, it spawned large numbers of java processes, sucked up all CPU time and the pipe here became jammed. I stopped the node, then took a look via tcpdump at what was coming in. Lots of orphaned traffic from other nodes. Is it possible that if a node is restarted too quickly it will become confused by other nodes attempting to continue sessions that were started in the previous instance of the node? If that's the case, is it reasonable to assume that the minimum announce delay for a persistent node should be longer than the maximum amount of time other nodes will attempt to continue sesssions with a prior instance of the local node? Replying to myself with results of a little experiment. I left the node down for about an hour, then restarted. Even before the announce interval had elapsed the node was once again swamped with connections, as verified by tcpdump since the proxy interface was not yet available. Again, this is 604 which was running great before I stopped it briefly. OTH while the CPU is being hammered I can still use the lan here to get out on the net. So in general things are still better with 604. ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] Connections running amok
Greetings, Checking my node this morning, (after waiting for top to come up, swap swap swap) I found I had some 155 java processes going. Any way to control this? Right now I can either run a node or work, not both. Maxnodeconnections seems to have no effect on the number of connections the node tries to support. Nor does bandwidth control seem to have any effect. Obviously there's going to be a storm of activity when a public announcement is broadcast about Freenet but just now it seems there are too few persistent nodes to keep up. We use our net connection to make a living here, so this comes down to a hard choice. If folks like me have to continue taking nodes down in order to work it will exacerbate the shortage of persistent nodes. Thanks for any hints you can provide. -- There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland. - George W. Bush ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] Connections running amok
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 01:55 pm, you wrote: Use the bandwidth limiter to prevent it swamping your connection. It is expected to use lots (up to 120) threads - they should normally be almost all idling. The current situation is a product of the network being slashdotted, and overloaded... Let me emphasize once again that I've had bandwidth as low as 8k, using both the combined option and the separate inbound/outbound options. Makes no difference here; the pipe gets saturated. Connection is ADSL 1700/384k. Can't even get a ping out when the node is up. What does MaxNodeConnections control? It appears to have no relationship to the number of inbound and outbound connections. All re 525. ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 12:45 pm, you wrote: I wanted to write and tell you how displeased I am with your software. I installed it and it is cumbersome to use. It is being touted as a P2P app. This does not appear to be the case. Never could figure it out. I made yadda-yadda That has got to be the funniest email I've read in a long time. After a tense week Joe should get a pat on the back for some much needed comic relief! What a great sense of humour. -- Sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures. - George W. Bush ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.5.0.2
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 05:09 pm, you wrote: Freenet 0.5.0.2 is now available for download. Please upgrade to this version, and inform us of any problems. This includes some important load balancing code that should help the network to get out of the dire state it is in following Monday's release and slashdotting. Hey hey, the calvary, just in time! Aye-aye, upgrading! Thank You! ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] results w/527
Pipe still saturates. I cut maxthreads to 40, then 20. Connections stayed at 45, pooled jobs at 98, java processes somewhere over 100. Load at 90+. Bandwidth adjustments via freenet.conf have zero effect. OTH, I don't see in the support thread that others are having the same issue with saturation of the actual net connection that I am. Is it possible I'm being messed w/ by my provider, Earthlink? They have essentially no stated limits on what I'm allowed to do with this connection as long as it's not openly illegal. Any advice would be much appreciated. At this point I cannot run a node and maintain a connection to the net for any other purpose, and I sort of suspect the node is not working worth a s**t this way either. -- Democracies die behind closed doors. - Judge Damon Keith ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] results w/527
10/29/02 9:59:00 PM, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting. The bandwidth limiter is not working then? Not as far as I can tell, or least very little. I have bandwidth set to 8k both ways, threads set to 20, and I'm showing something like 200 processes right just now and my connection is choked. I'll have to turn the node off to get this posting out. Very odd. In fact, it really does not seem to matter if I adjust anything to do with resources- the node instantly gobbles everything once it has announced. Yum-yum, burp, want more! I don't think nicing will help, since I'm not using the box for anything else and all things being equal the threads presumably will be end up sharing system resources nicely. Bear in mind that things _were_ working perfectly up until yesterday before The Posting. All the same, other than the node announcement chitchat storm (and judging from the comments I saw on Slashdot it's really hard to say how many actually managed to accomplish anything besides wiping out their own porn and music collections and then throwing tantrums when they were not instantly presented with infinite free goodies), I wonder if as Freenet becomes more popular the kind of traffic you're seeing now will be normal. Maybe these are the first symptoms of chronic leaching. The classic peer-peer networks essentially forced people to contribute if they wanted to participate, while Freenet does not and probably cannot because of routing issues. Don't know, but only one thing to do, keep trying. As a US citizen I'm obligated to help offset the damage we've done by firewalling China... ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] Load
Persistent node (525) here showing 100% load (106% and change right now) most of the time. Is this something to worry about? And if it is, is there any information you'd like to see? -- Democracies die behind closed doors. - Judge Damon Keith ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] bandwidth limiting, maxnodeconnections
Partly as an experiment to see if I can reduce the load on my node reduced and partly to see if I can restore Net connectivity to users here on the lan I've been playing around with freenet.config bandwidth and maxnodeconnections parameters. I've cut (and obviously I don't want these to be permanent) input and output bandwith to 8k and maxnodeconnections to 30. I still see 100% load on the box, and the Net connection is still choked. Am I missing something? How far would I need to cut these in order to see a difference? (earlier posting about ADSL actually does not make sense for traffic transiting the node and in fact did not seem to improve anything). BTW at this point in order to get mail out of here I actually have to shut down the node. I guess the publicity is working... -- Democracies die behind closed doors. - Judge Damon Keith ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] bandwidth limiting, maxnodeconnections
Partly as an experiment to see if I can reduce the load on my node reduced and partly to see if I can restore Net connectivity to users here on the lan I've been playing around with freenet.config bandwidth and maxnodeconnections parameters. I've cut (and obviously I don't want these to be permanent) input and output bandwith to 8k and maxnodeconnections to 30. I still see 100% load on the box, and the Net connection is still choked. Am I missing something? How far would I need to cut these in order to see a difference? (earlier posting about ADSL actually does not make sense for traffic transiting the node and in fact did not seem to improve anything). -- Democracies die behind closed doors. - Judge Damon Keith ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] A few last questions
For today, anyway. I've now got maxnodeconnections set to just 10, hoping that I can throttle traffic back to the point where other types of traffic can work here along with Freenet. Looking at my connections page on fproxy, I see it's reporting 48 connections even with the ridiculously scaled back parameter in freenet.conf. What type of connections are controlled by maxnodeconnections, and what sort are reported by fproxy's connections status page? Is there any relationship? -- Democracies die behind closed doors. - Judge Damon Keith ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] What to run
At this point is it better for Freenet for a persistent node to be running .5 or the 600 builds, if a node operator must choose? -- Democracies die behind closed doors. - Judge Damon Keith ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] 524 won't lift off
Hmm, just updated with 524 and for the first time since running the 5xx builds I cannot retrieve FE. Ran out of runway at 15 hops. GPL is gettable though. Persistent node here. -- Sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures. - George W. Bush ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] Plunging hoptimes?
You ain't seen nothing yet. Hop times are about to reduce by a factor of 3, at least. You mean beyond what we've already seen w/ the 5pre stuff so far? And how? Thanks! -- Democracies die behind closed doors. - Judge Damon Keith ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] Disk space, datastore rollover
Now that 5pre is out, I'm seeing my datastore filling rapidly. 3 days ago I started with the default 200MB allocation, I had to increase that to 400MB yesterday, and today I moved the ds over to an unused 2GB drive on the box the node is on. I don't expect the new disk to last long given the rate things are going. I've been running a persistent node most of the time for the past two years and I've seen nothing like it before. Impressive! My question concerns how I can determine if files are rotating out of my ds prematurely. Clearly if the 2GB drive fills in 8 or 10 days it means that I'm dumping files that ought to be around longer. On the other hand, if I pull an unused 40GB drive off the shelf and put that in the node it should last a while, but ultimately files will once again begin to spill off. Is there a facility in the nodestatus servlet or elsewhere that will tell me the age of files currently being dumped out of the ds? It's probably there, but I can't find it and it would be helpful to know this as a guide to deciding when to drop more diskspace on the node. I could OTH use ls in the shell to view files by age but this will have to span the (native) ds directories and since the node software must itself be sorting files by age hopefully it can let us in on this info? -- Democracies die behind closed doors. - Judge Damon Keith ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] 0.3.9.1+IBM 1.3 JDK+Linux 2.2.14 = Splat?
Wondering if anybody else has seen this. I've been running 0.3.9.1 on i386 Linux 2.2.14 w/ IBM JDK 1.3. successfully since 0.3.9.1 was released. Tons of traffic, lots of storage and retrieval happening, everything seemed to be working smoothly. A couple of days ago the box the whole affair was running began locking hard- no console access, ethernet unresponsive, etc. This happened several times, but stopped when I reluctantly shut off the freenet facility. Crashes happened within 1 hour of restarting the box. Notify time is set to 15 mins (and I hope I've not violated any sanctions with that). ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/support
