Re: [freenet-support] Tired of my complaining yet? If not, read!
In message 002201c28492$b6cd6180$4e0d4818@ip78, Robert Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I just want to spout off about my node's performance, or lack of it. I'm running a permanent node on a server that has other things to do besides spend every cpu cycle on a java app. Also, like alot of node operators, I don't use the machine directly, but instead access fproxy and fcp from another machine. Sometimes it can take SEVERAL minutes just to call up the web interface! Even when I do finally get through, alot of content is simply not found, no doubt due to overloaded permanent nodes. Here are some suggestions for the developers: As a matter of interest, our your other machines on private or routeable IP addresses? I gather the bandwidth limits do not now apply to machines on the same private subnet. This does not help those of us using routeable IP addresses, and I wondered if the speed of contacting fproxy was increased in practice. Lynx on the Freenet server certainly seems to work faster, but it is less than useful for graphics, obviously. Transient nodes should be your lowest priority right now. Attention should be shifted to the permanent nodes because the health of the network depends on them. That means that CPU utilization needs to be reduced drastically. Performance for FCP and FProxy need to get the HIGHEST priority when the node is processing. If that means that other transactions have to be put on hold in order to process a local request, then so be it. Permanent node operators should not be penalized for serving the Freenet community. See above, we need to know if bandwidth limiting is a major factor in Fproxy performance. Do you have the strange problem that my permanent node has, that it loses all the contacts from its routeing table because it cannot successfully contact them, although a transient node close by can easily contact the same nodes 50% of the time? If there is a solution to this that does not severely impact on incoming requests (or even if it does!) it would make running a permanent node less frustrating. More should be done to encourage people to run permanent nodes. Requests could be prioritized by each node according to the requesters responsiveness and availability to that node. Of course some minimum level of resources need to be dedicated to slower nodes to prevent the network from fragmenting. To help those who are firewalled or using NAT (who have trouble receiving inbound connections, but not establishing outbound connections), nodes with a permanent IP could also serve as helpers, by listening on behalf of a firewalled or NAT node. This would only be required for establishing connections, NOT for acting as a proxy for the data. Bandwidth requirements would be minor and would allow alot of people to become permanent nodes. Sounds interesting, the firewalled node would maintain a permanent connection to the helper node? -- Roger Hayter ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] Tired of my complaining yet? If not, read!
My IP address are both routeable and on the same subnet. I do not believe that bandwidth limiting is the major cause. Something else is slowing fproxy down (for non localhost addresses) because I get the slowdown no matter how I set the bandwidth limiter. What I would like is for all FCP and FProxy connections to be treaty EXACTLY as if they are from local host no matter what. If people need to control access this can be done with a firewall. ssh tunneling is no solution for windows users, unless someone out there knows how this could be done in windows. - Original Message - From: Roger Hayter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Tired of my complaining yet? If not, read! In message 002201c28492$b6cd6180$4e0d4818@ip78, Robert Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I just want to spout off about my node's performance, or lack of it. I'm running a permanent node on a server that has other things to do besides spend every cpu cycle on a java app. Also, like alot of node operators, I don't use the machine directly, but instead access fproxy and fcp from another machine. Sometimes it can take SEVERAL minutes just to call up the web interface! Even when I do finally get through, alot of content is simply not found, no doubt due to overloaded permanent nodes. Here are some suggestions for the developers: As a matter of interest, our your other machines on private or routeable IP addresses? I gather the bandwidth limits do not now apply to machines on the same private subnet. This does not help those of us using routeable IP addresses, and I wondered if the speed of contacting fproxy was increased in practice. Lynx on the Freenet server certainly seems to work faster, but it is less than useful for graphics, obviously. Transient nodes should be your lowest priority right now. Attention should be shifted to the permanent nodes because the health of the network depends on them. That means that CPU utilization needs to be reduced drastically. Performance for FCP and FProxy need to get the HIGHEST priority when the node is processing. If that means that other transactions have to be put on hold in order to process a local request, then so be it. Permanent node operators should not be penalized for serving the Freenet community. See above, we need to know if bandwidth limiting is a major factor in Fproxy performance. Do you have the strange problem that my permanent node has, that it loses all the contacts from its routeing table because it cannot successfully contact them, although a transient node close by can easily contact the same nodes 50% of the time? If there is a solution to this that does not severely impact on incoming requests (or even if it does!) it would make running a permanent node less frustrating. More should be done to encourage people to run permanent nodes. Requests could be prioritized by each node according to the requesters responsiveness and availability to that node. Of course some minimum level of resources need to be dedicated to slower nodes to prevent the network from fragmenting. To help those who are firewalled or using NAT (who have trouble receiving inbound connections, but not establishing outbound connections), nodes with a permanent IP could also serve as helpers, by listening on behalf of a firewalled or NAT node. This would only be required for establishing connections, NOT for acting as a proxy for the data. Bandwidth requirements would be minor and would allow alot of people to become permanent nodes. Sounds interesting, the firewalled node would maintain a permanent connection to the helper node? -- Roger Hayter ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] Tired of my complaining yet? If not, read!
Robert Carroll wrote: no matter what. If people need to control access this can be done with a firewall. ssh tunneling is no solution for windows users, unless someone out there knows how this could be done in windows. For windows clients solutions exists: Cygwin's openssh works just great for that. OTOH you need cygwin installed :) If not that, SecureCRT (commercial product) does SSH+port forwarding. Maybe PuTTY (free, IIRC) has port worwarding too, but can't remember well. For servers (freenet running on windows) too: Cygwin's openssh again (this time sshd :) ) And all those neat remote administration tools, ranging from VNC to PCAnywhere to BackOrificeclones ( :) ) HTH -- --- TLD There is no Good, one thorough, there is no Evil, there is only Flesh [Pinhead] ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] Tired of my complaining yet? If not, read!
In message 005401c284b6$ec68ca40$4e0d4818@ip78, Robert Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes My IP address are both routeable and on the same subnet. I do not believe that bandwidth limiting is the major cause. Something else is slowing fproxy down (for non localhost addresses) because I get the slowdown no matter how I set the bandwidth limiter. What I would like is for all FCP and FProxy connections to be treaty EXACTLY as if they are from local host no matter what. If people need to control access this can be done with a firewall. ssh tunneling is no solution for windows users, unless someone out there knows how this could be done in windows. A solution suggested on this list was to run a proxy programme (?Squid) on the Freenet server, and, presumably, proxy to a different port for the other machines to contact. Sounds as if it might work, but my server has other little jobs and can't spare resources for another unnecessary daemon. Would be interested to know if it works though? - Original Message - From: Roger Hayter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Tired of my complaining yet? If not, read! In message 002201c28492$b6cd6180$4e0d4818@ip78, Robert Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I just want to spout off about my node's performance, or lack of it. I'm running a permanent node on a server that has other things to do besides spend every cpu cycle on a java app. Also, like alot of node operators, I don't use the machine directly, but instead access fproxy and fcp from another machine. Sometimes it can take SEVERAL minutes just to call up the web interface! Even when I do finally get through, alot of content is simply not found, no doubt due to overloaded permanent nodes. Here are some suggestions for the developers: As a matter of interest, our your other machines on private or routeable IP addresses? I gather the bandwidth limits do not now apply to machines on the same private subnet. This does not help those of us using routeable IP addresses, and I wondered if the speed of contacting fproxy was increased in practice. Lynx on the Freenet server certainly seems to work faster, but it is less than useful for graphics, obviously. Transient nodes should be your lowest priority right now. Attention should be shifted to the permanent nodes because the health of the network depends on them. That means that CPU utilization needs to be reduced drastically. Performance for FCP and FProxy need to get the HIGHEST priority when the node is processing. If that means that other transactions have to be put on hold in order to process a local request, then so be it. Permanent node operators should not be penalized for serving the Freenet community. See above, we need to know if bandwidth limiting is a major factor in Fproxy performance. Do you have the strange problem that my permanent node has, that it loses all the contacts from its routeing table because it cannot successfully contact them, although a transient node close by can easily contact the same nodes 50% of the time? If there is a solution to this that does not severely impact on incoming requests (or even if it does!) it would make running a permanent node less frustrating. More should be done to encourage people to run permanent nodes. Requests could be prioritized by each node according to the requesters responsiveness and availability to that node. Of course some minimum level of resources need to be dedicated to slower nodes to prevent the network from fragmenting. To help those who are firewalled or using NAT (who have trouble receiving inbound connections, but not establishing outbound connections), nodes with a permanent IP could also serve as helpers, by listening on behalf of a firewalled or NAT node. This would only be required for establishing connections, NOT for acting as a proxy for the data. Bandwidth requirements would be minor and would allow alot of people to become permanent nodes. Sounds interesting, the firewalled node would maintain a permanent connection to the helper node? -- Roger Hayter ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support -- Roger Hayter ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-support] Tired of my complaining yet? If not, read!
Roger Hayter wrote: A solution suggested on this list was to run a proxy programme (?Squid) on the Freenet server, and, presumably, proxy to a different port for the other machines to contact. Sounds as if it might work, but my server has other little jobs and can't spare resources for another unnecessary daemon. Would be interested to know if it works though? Yup. squid-ding freenet server works just fine. Just ask for http://localhost:/ and that's it. You just need to remember to pass by the proxy to reach the not-local-anymore localhost :) -- --- TLD There is no Good, one thorough, there is no Evil, there is only Flesh [Pinhead] ___ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
[freenet-support] Tired of my complaining yet? If not, read!
I just want to spout off about my node's performance, or lack of it. I'm running a permanent node on a server that has other things to do besides spend every cpu cycle on a java app. Also, like alot of node operators, I don't use the machine directly, but instead access fproxy and fcp from another machine. Sometimes it can take SEVERAL minutes just to call up the web interface! Even when I do finally get through, alot of content is simply not found, no doubt due to overloadedpermanent nodes. Here are some suggestions for the developers: Transient nodes should be your lowest priority right now. Attention should be shifted to the permanent nodes because the health of the network depends on them. That means that CPU utilization needs to be reduced drastically. Performance for FCP and FProxy need to get the HIGHEST priority when the node is processing. If that means that other transactions have to be put on hold in order to process a local request, then so be it. Permanent node operators should not be penalized for serving the Freenet community. More should be done to encourage people to run permanent nodes. Requests could be prioritized by each node according to the requesters responsiveness and availability to that node. Of course some minimum level of resources need to be dedicated to slower nodes to prevent the network from fragmenting. To help those who are firewalled or using NAT (who have trouble receiving inbound connections, but not establishing outbound connections), nodes with a permanent IP could also serve as helpers, by listening on behalf of a firewalled or NAT node. This would only be required for establishing connections, NOT for acting as a proxy for the data. Bandwidth requirements would be minor and would allow alot of people to become permanent nodes.
