-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> I see "Outbound connections that are to peers not in the routingtable:
25.0%",
> I thought this was fixed for outgoing == routing table.
Btw. in my case this value was near 85%
- - Jukka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Toad wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 05:25:01PM +0300, Jukka Holappa wrote:
>
>>My node is serving > 2 requests per hour and is not even overloaded
>>yet! With stable build about 6000-8000 requests hits the CPU limit.
>>
>>It also seems to find a
On Tuesday 29 July 2003 02:01 pm, Toad wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:56:40AM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> > Yes. But why am I still so overloaded?
>
> Are you sure you don't have watchme enabled?
>
> Secondly, please try the current unstable snapshot.
I am currently running 6119 I had been
On July 29, 2003 03:29 pm, Toad wrote:
> > It also seems to find a lot of working nodes and use them:
> > Total Trials 230502
> > Total Successes 182887
> >
> > Previously the successes-value was a lot less than total.
>
> I wonder what part of this is due to nonblocking QueryRejected sendin
On Tuesday 29 July 2003 05:28 pm, Scott Young wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 14:47, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 July 2003 12:22 pm, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 12:04:13PM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck spake thusly:
> > > > That is all well and good, however it does not give
I suggest that we should have a maximum key size of 1MB. Of course this
would be configurable, but the network default should be 1MB. Why?
* 1MB is cacheable on any node that is not using an unsupported stupidly
small store. Files moving through the network that are only cacheable
on a few node
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:09:58 -0700 Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Changes:
>* Open connections only routing. We open connections to all nodes
>in the routing table on startup,
I hope that this is done in a relaxed way, i.e. open-open-wait-wait-open-
open-wait-wait etc.
I've heard that it's saf
One point. In order to predict accurately, and therefore route
accurately, we want to adjust T_success(node, key) by both htl and size
- and since the search is separate, we get
P_success(node, key) *
(T_search_success(node, key)*htl +
T_transfer(node, key)/keysize)
The other possibility is to
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 05:25:01PM +0300, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gordan wrote:
> [snip]
> > The big problem seems to be in far too many
> > freenet.OpenConnectionManager$ConnectionJob instances being spawned.
> >
> > Can anybody offer any insight
- Original Message -
From: "Toad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] container maximum
>On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:59:30PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> I think the 1 MB limit is okay.
>>
>> See for example ye
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 14:47, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 July 2003 12:22 pm, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 12:04:13PM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck spake thusly:
> > > That is all well and good, however it does not give us any way of
> > > insuring that nodes that have a fast conn
>- Original Message -
>From: "Toad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:00 PM
>Subject: [freenet-dev] Pcaching still not working
>My incomingHopsSinceReset for the last 24 hours shows no hourly mean
>over 1.5. Is this typical? It suggests that th
>- Original Message -
>From: "Toad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:00 PM
>Subject: [freenet-dev] Pcaching still not working
>My incomingHopsSinceReset for the last 24 hours shows no hourly mean
>over 1.5. Is this typical? It suggests that th
Freenet stable build 5018 is now available. Update using the update.sh
script, the freenet-webinstall.exe installer/updater, or by fetching the
jar from http://freenetproject.org/snapshots/freenet-latest.jar. The
snapshots are being regenerated - by the time you read this, give or
take 10 minutes,
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 10:52:46PM +0300, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Toad wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 05:25:01PM +0300, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> >>My node is serving > 2 requests per hour and is not even overloaded
> >>yet! With stable build
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 10:52:46PM +0300, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Toad wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 05:25:01PM +0300, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> >>My node is serving > 2 requests per hour and is not even overloaded
> >>yet! With stable build
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Toad wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 05:25:01PM +0300, Jukka Holappa wrote:
>>My node is serving > 2 requests per hour and is not even overloaded
>>yet! With stable build about 6000-8000 requests hits the CPU limit.
>>
>>It also seems to find a lo
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 05:25:01PM +0300, Jukka Holappa wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gordan wrote:
> [snip]
> > The big problem seems to be in far too many
> > freenet.OpenConnectionManager$ConnectionJob instances being spawned.
> >
> > Can anybody offer any insight
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:59:30PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I think the 1 MB limit is okay.
>
> See for example yesterday's TFEE container. It is about 400 KB and it
> consists of some 3 HTML and 1 CSS that sum up to nearly 2 MB!
This seems like a reasonable argument to allow compress
It might just be feasible. At some point. In fact, it's a benchmark -
freenet is working if the stream servlets can insert a live 64kbps
stream, and pull it out of a completely unconnected node, without
skipping.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 05:18:10PM -0500, David wrote:
> Whatever became of the proje
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:56:40AM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> On Monday 21 July 2003 03:05 am, Niklas Bergh wrote:
> > Looked like your node was stuck in some watchme communication
> Yes. But why am I still so overloaded?
Are you sure you don't have watchme enabled?
Secondly, please try t
On Tuesday 29 July 2003 12:22 pm, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 12:04:13PM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck spake thusly:
> > That is all well and good, however it does not give us any way of
> > insuring that nodes that have a fast connection to each other on the
> > underlying network will be
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 10:25:11AM -0700, Todd Walton wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Toad wrote:
>
> > NIO phase 2 is also in the pipeline, but probably post 0.6.
>
> What does NIO phase 2 consist of?
Nonblocking (and therefore non-thread-occupying) transfers of trailers,
sending of messages, aut
Jul 29, 2003 5:45:11 PM (freenet.transport.WriteSelectorLoop, write
interface thread, ERROR): Selector loop seems to be stuck in Sun windows JVM
'select'-bug (Sun BugId: 4729342). Consecutive encounters: 22044. Please
report to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if this situation resolves itself
I have this mess
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Todd Walton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > You're confusing word function. The original poster mislead with the use
> > of "LRU cache". It should be "LRU'd cache" or some such. Cache is a noun
> > in "LRU cache" and a verb in "probabilistic cachi
Applied (needed some minor corrections). In unstable 6119.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:11:14PM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> On Monday 28 July 2003 10:19 pm, Toad wrote:
> > Please produce a universal (diff -u) diff. This is much easier to
> > handle.
> Here is the saim diff with -u. It is zipped f
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 12:04:13PM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck spake thusly:
> That is all well and good, however it does not give us any way of insuring
> that nodes that have a fast connection to each other on the underlying
> network will be any more likely to share a similar specialization. I can
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Toad wrote:
> NIO phase 2 is also in the pipeline, but probably post 0.6.
What does NIO phase 2 consist of?
-todd
___
devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
With NGrouting nodes that are closer together on the underlying network, are
(somewhat) more likely to connect to each other than the previously totally
random connections.
Nodes can maintain connections that are usefull to them, because their
specialization is close to their own. This could e
On Monday 28 July 2003 04:21 pm, Toad wrote:
> > One other thing, I read on article in Scientific
> > American (May 2003, pages 60-69)about scale-free
> > networks that was quite interesting. Intuitively, it
> > seems that freenet is a type of scale-free network
> > itself. One of the weaknesses
30 matches
Mail list logo
