On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:49:29PM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>
> Problem, as I see it, is that we base output rates on the rates that we
> recieve
> data from nodes. Most do not have symetric bandwidth (I have 20-30x more
> input
> bandwidth). In other words, even though I limit my output ban
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 08:01:51AM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
> I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
> in the output rates. It still averages about 5k/s with peaks of about 20.
>
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:49:29PM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>
> Problem, as I see it, is that we base output rates on the rates that we
> recieve
> data from nodes. Most do not have symetric bandwidth (I have 20-30x more
> input
> bandwidth). In other words, even though I limit my output ban
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 08:01:51AM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
> I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
> in the output rates. It still averages about 5k/s with peaks of about 20.
>
Are you implying that Freenet is becoming self-aware?
-- Original message --
From: san...@sandos.se
> > Hi,
> >
> > At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
> > I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
Are you implying that Freenet is becoming self-aware?
-- Original message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Hi,
> >
> > At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
> > I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
> Hi,
>
> At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
> I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
> in the output rates. It still averages about 5k/s with peaks of about 20.
This has always been the case for me. I think the network is sim
> Hi,
>
> At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
> I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
> in the output rates. It still averages about 5k/s with peaks of about 20.
This has always been the case for me. I think the network is sim
On Monday 16 October 2006 08:04, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Ed Tomlinson [2006-10-16 08:01:51]:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
> > I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
> > in the output rates. It st
On Monday 16 October 2006 08:04, Florent Daignière wrote:
> * Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-16 08:01:51]:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
> > I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
> > in the o
* Ed Tomlinson [2006-10-16 08:01:51]:
> Hi,
>
> At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
> I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
> in the output rates. It still averages about 5k/s with peaks of about 20.
>
> Think there is some
Hi,
At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
in the output rates. It still averages about 5k/s with peaks of about 20.
Think there is something fishy with our bandwidth limitations.
Ed
* Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-16 08:01:51]:
> Hi,
>
> At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
> I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
> in the output rates. It still averages about 5k/s with peaks of about 20.
>
>
Hi,
At toad's prompting I tried an experiment. The results were interesting.
I changed by output bandwidth limit to 100k/s. The result. NO change
in the output rates. It still averages about 5k/s with peaks of about 20.
Think there is something fishy with our bandwidth limitations.
Ed
__
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 07:32:49PM -0400, Andrew Rodland wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Alright... the way the defaults work is REALLY annoying me, and I think
> that it's slowing down freenet more than any number of users who might
> be switching to transient for ban
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alright... the way the defaults work is REALLY annoying me, and I think
that it's slowing down freenet more than any number of users who might
be switching to transient for bandwidth reasons.
Suggestions:
1. For the windows users, make bandwidth limiti
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 03:58:24AM +0200, Frank v Waveren wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:42:27PM +0100, Toad wrote:
> > Somebody decided that it would be very nice if the limits actually
> > WORKED. Sticking your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand is
> > no better than NOT HAVING A
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:42:27PM +0100, Toad wrote:
> Somebody decided that it would be very nice if the limits actually
> WORKED. Sticking your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand is
> no better than NOT HAVING ANY LIMITING IN FREENET. And while that might
> be theoretically sound, in
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 09:12:49AM +0200, Frank v Waveren wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 11:24:04PM -0600, pineapplecoward wrote:
> > Just curious why the logfile shows my bandwidth limit as 2/3 of what they
> > are set to in freenet.ini.
> Iirc this is a recent hack because someone decided that
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 11:24:04PM -0600, pineapplecoward wrote:
> Just curious why the logfile shows my bandwidth limit as 2/3 of what they
> are set to in freenet.ini.
Iirc this is a recent hack because someone decided that the bandwidth
limiting parameters should be interpreted as ip level, whic
Just curious why the logfile shows my bandwidth limit as 2/3 of what they
are set to in freenet.ini.
___
devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
In message <20020819233202.GA18884 at blueyonder.co.uk>, Matthew Toseland
writes
>On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:55:16PM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> Am I right in thinking that the general bandwidth limits to Freenet
>> apply to fproxy (and other info servlets)? Seems the only reason why
>> they r
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:55:16PM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Am I right in thinking that the general bandwidth limits to Freenet
> apply to fproxy (and other info servlets)? Seems the only reason why
> they respond immediately to localhost (using lynx - not very handy), but
> often time-out
Am I right in thinking that the general bandwidth limits to Freenet
apply to fproxy (and other info servlets)? Seems the only reason why
they respond immediately to localhost (using lynx - not very handy), but
often time-out from enabled LAN addresses. If so, can we please have
either a way t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Toseland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:55:16PM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> Am I right in thinking that the general bandwidth limits to Freenet
>> apply to fproxy (and other info servlets)? Seems the only reason why
>> they respon
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:55:16PM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Am I right in thinking that the general bandwidth limits to Freenet
> apply to fproxy (and other info servlets)? Seems the only reason why
> they respond immediately to localhost (using lynx - not very handy), but
> often time-out
Am I right in thinking that the general bandwidth limits to Freenet
apply to fproxy (and other info servlets)? Seems the only reason why
they respond immediately to localhost (using lynx - not very handy), but
often time-out from enabled LAN addresses. If so, can we please have
either a way
27 matches
Mail list logo
