> Jan wrote:
>
<...>
> > Yesterday I looked at the web interface of Freenet and saw there were no
> > less than 400 connections! Speeds were of course mere bits per second...
>
> This is being worked on. One of the developers (toad) is working on
> multiplexing (aka muxing), which would allow t
Jan wrote:
My ISP caps my upstream to 16 KBs, which a single connection indeed
could be. Two downloaders get 6 K if they're lucky and four leechers go
at 2 tops, something like that. When I allowed 8 or more lurkers, they
usually never got their files.
Yeah, I suffer from a low upstream bandwidth
> On Tuesday 16 December 2003 01:12 pm, John McCain:
[ponders over why freenet is working so badly]
Well, I know next to nothing about networking. But in the time I ran
Napster I noticed that many connections slow down the overall bandwith.
My ISP caps my upstream to 16 KBs, which a single connec
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 01:12 pm, John McCain wrote:
> > > -Are they sure that freenet's bad behavior of late is not the result of
> > > some sort of poisoning attack?
> >
> > On both networks?
>
> Why not?
What if the attack consisted of controlling a large number of nodes which
inserted and
> > -Are they sure that freenet's bad behavior of late is not the result of
> > some sort of poisoning attack?
>
> On both networks?
Why not?
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:47:29AM -0600, John McCain wrote:
> Okay, we all know the following:
>
> As of right now, freenet pretty much does not work. Content cannot be
> accessed. People have stopped trying to update content, and people are
> dropping out of the network. The character of th
Okay, we all know the following:
As of right now, freenet pretty much does not work. Content cannot be
accessed. People have stopped trying to update content, and people are
dropping out of the network. The character of the discussion of freenet has
changed from a working free network to an
