The by-HTL stats include the average distance between the key and the ideal
location for each HTL.
Yesterday on my node, the closest point for CHKs is 0.0003 at HTL 13, and for
SSKs it is 0.0041 at HTL 14. Note the extra zero! So we are nearly 12 times
better at routing for SSKs than for CHKs!
Today I've noticed that on my node's status page it says:
Build 5107 ... Load: ... 137%
It never went over 100 % before, so what does it mean? I did keep
Frost running overnight...
Today I've noticed that on my node's status page it says:
Build 5107 ... Load: ... 137%
It never went over 100 % before, so what does it mean? I did keep
Frost running overnight...
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
David Masover wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Toad wrote:
| No, if you can do that, then you can portscan for Freenet nodes. That's
| a REALLY bad idea. You need to use some sort of seednodes mechanism.
Why is that a bad idea? If a government is paranoid enough, they can
excuse me but seednodes looks a great point to quit the entire freenet,
i start to use freenet because of it's working philosofy.
my $0,02
On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 23:51, David Masover wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Toad wrote:
| No, if you can do that, then you can
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but:
In the short to medium term, central seednodes are a necessary evil.
Especially as there is very little use of the Distribution Servlet/
Spread Freenet thing for more organic spreading of Freenet. Right now,
Freenet traffic is relatively easy to detect.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:19:55PM -0500, David Masover wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Toad wrote:
| java -cp freenet.jar freenet.Version on a command line?
Freenet: Fred 0.5 (protocol STABLE-1.50) build 5084 (last good build: 5083)
| Show me it.
Same as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Toad wrote:
| No, if you can do that, then you can portscan for Freenet nodes. That's
| a REALLY bad idea. You need to use some sort of seednodes mechanism.
Why is that a bad idea? If a government is paranoid enough, they can
just put devices all
David Masover wrote:
Of course, if you don't own
your own computer, how can you trust it? One-way trust. Suppose my bro
trusts me, but I don't trust him, I have root, and he wants Freenet.
You don't need root to run it and it's probably a good idea
to not run it as root even when you are
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:48:29PM -0500, David Masover wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Toad wrote:
| On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:33:30AM -0500, David Masover wrote:
|
|Unfortunately, I can't work on this at all right now. My freenet node
|looks fine, only I get a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zenon Panoussis wrote:
|
|
| David Masover wrote:
|
| Of course, if you don't own
| your own computer, how can you trust it? One-way trust. Suppose my bro
| trusts me, but I don't trust him, I have root, and he wants Freenet.
|
|
| You don't need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Toad wrote:
| java -cp freenet.jar freenet.Version on a command line?
Freenet: Fred 0.5 (protocol STABLE-1.50) build 5084 (last good build: 5083)
| Show me it.
Same as what you've been seeing in the logs, pretty much. Since it dies
now same as ever.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
TLD wrote:
| what's your mainport.allowedHosts= setting, and what's the IP of the
| computer you're trying to access from?
It's sane. Or you tell me:
http://slaphack.com/freenet.conf
http://slaphack.com/freenet.log
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zenon Panoussis wrote:
|
| Toad wrote:
|
| The thing is, the lack of search capabilities reduces
| the useability of freenet
|
|
| Of course. There are ways to implement search, however. Sooner or later
| somebody will implement a good spider based
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Zenon Panoussis
Sent: den 20 juli 2004 05:15
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Load
I wrote:
Taking what you say here for granted, the entire discussion
up
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:50:02PM +0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
Indeed. Thus we have NIMs, FreeMail and Frost within Freenet, and
outside it we have Mixmaster remailers, IIP, I2P, various kinds of
proxies and so on. Sadly some people use hushmail too, which is not
exactly the safest option.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:14:49AM +0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
I wrote:
Taking what you say here for granted, the entire discussion
up to this point is probably a meaningless exchange based
on some misunderstanding on my part. But what?
[URIs from logs]
Would be interested to see
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:33:30AM -0500, David Masover wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zenon Panoussis wrote:
|
| Toad wrote:
|
| The thing is, the lack of search capabilities reduces
| the useability of freenet
|
|
| Of course. There are ways to implement
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Toad wrote:
| On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:33:30AM -0500, David Masover wrote:
|
|Unfortunately, I can't work on this at all right now. My freenet node
|looks fine, only I get a connection close from FProxy the instant I try
|connecting -- that is, 0
Hello everyone.
I started a node on a machine with lots of bandwidth and a very
lousy I/O subsystem. Not much else is going on on the machine, so
without freenet the load is steadily between 0.01 and 0.10. When
freenet runs, the load is constantly around 3.50, with peaks
reaching well above 5.00.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 19 July 2004 15:14, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
Hello everyone.
I started a node on a machine with lots of bandwidth and a very
lousy I/O subsystem. Not much else is going on on the machine, so
without freenet the load is steadily between
Roger Oksanen wrote:
I run freenet niced at +10 on a 2x500MHz computer, load stays at 2-3 all
the time.
Ah yes, I forgot to mention that. It's niced at 19. Beats me how
something that's niced 19 can bring the load to 5.00, but that's
a different issue.
I suspect the problem you have lies in the
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 02:14:38PM +0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
Hello everyone.
I started a node on a machine with lots of bandwidth and a very
lousy I/O subsystem. Not much else is going on on the machine, so
without freenet the load is steadily between 0.01 and 0.10. When
freenet runs,
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:37:41PM +0300, Roger Oksanen wrote:
I run freenet niced at +10 on a 2x500MHz computer, load stays at 2-3 all
the time.
I suspect the problem you have lies in the fact that freenet will eat
ALL available bandwidth that you give it, which will lead to
starvation,
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:54:09PM +0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
Roger Oksanen wrote:
I run freenet niced at +10 on a 2x500MHz computer, load stays at 2-3 all
the time.
Ah yes, I forgot to mention that. It's niced at 19. Beats me how
something that's niced 19 can bring the load to
Toad wrote:
Strange. What is your logLevel ?
Well, that's relative. The log level is set to debug, but the
log file is a FIFO, where a simple perl script greps for URIs
and dumps the rest. My idea was to feed those URIs to mnogosearch
and create a non-anonymous search engine fo freenet.
Won't make
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:02:42PM +0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
Toad wrote:
Strange. What is your logLevel ?
Well, that's relative. The log level is set to debug, but the
log file is a FIFO, where a simple perl script greps for URIs
and dumps the rest. My idea was to feed those URIs to
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:03:47PM +0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
Toad wrote:
I recommend you set the following:
logLevelDetail=freenet.client:debug
You did uncomment it, right?
Of course :)
...that now the URIs don't get logged. '
That's strange. What URIs were you after?
Toad wrote:
The thing is, the lack of search capabilities reduces
the useability of freenet
Of course. There are ways to implement search, however. Sooner or later
somebody will implement a good spider based anonymous search.
I searched a bit on the web. At
I wrote:
Taking what you say here for granted, the entire discussion
up to this point is probably a meaningless exchange based
on some misunderstanding on my part. But what?
[URIs from logs]
Would be interested to see some of this list.
Duh. So am I by now, but with all the messing around
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 00:40, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
I've been getting good results with the following:
maxNodeConnections=128
maximumThreads=128
rtMaxNodes=256
targetMaxThreads=128
tfAbsoluteMaxThreads=128
How much RAM do you have? It said Reducing rtMaxNodes to 64. It still takes
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 00:40, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
I've been getting good results with the following:
maxNodeConnections=128
maximumThreads=128
rtMaxNodes=256
targetMaxThreads=128
tfAbsoluteMaxThreads=128
The load average still shot up. It's 19.65 12 minutes after I started it, and
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 06:44, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
I have 512 MB of RAM. I'm curious now, how are you starting the node?
What command are you using?
./start-freenet.sh
I have 48 meg. What settings do you recommend?
Could you try the following and let us know what you get:
java -jar
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 06:15:17AM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 00:40, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
I've been getting good results with the following:
maxNodeConnections=128
maximumThreads=128
rtMaxNodes=256
targetMaxThreads=128
tfAbsoluteMaxThreads=128
The load
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 06:15:17AM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 00:40, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
I've been getting good results with the following:
maxNodeConnections=128
maximumThreads=128
rtMaxNodes=256
targetMaxThreads=128
tfAbsoluteMaxThreads=128
You might
You could try doCPULoad=true, but you'd have to turn off the background
CPU hog. That makes the node tell other nodes to send it fewer queries
until its CPU usage is reasonable.
What is the messageSendTime? On the General page?
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 02:14:48PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 14:17, Toad wrote:
You could try doCPULoad=true, but you'd have to turn off the background
CPU hog. That makes the node tell other nodes to send it fewer queries
until its CPU usage is reasonable.
What is the messageSendTime? On the General page?
It took several
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 03:23:14PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 14:17, Toad wrote:
You could try doCPULoad=true, but you'd have to turn off the background
CPU hog. That makes the node tell other nodes to send it fewer queries
until its CPU usage is reasonable.
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 15:30, Toad wrote:
Hmm. It's really struggling, even though it's not doing anything...
I dunno what we can do about it...
I moved it to the laptop, and it seems to be doing fairly well. Oddly, there
is little activity on my Freenet port, as seen in tcpdump, even when
It took several minutes for the General page to come up.
messageSendTimeRequest is 0, which probably doesn't tell you anything, so
here's the page.
Hmm. It's really struggling, even though it's not doing anything...
I dunno what we can do about it...
Produce a couple of full stackdumps to see
I'm running Freenet on a 48MB machine which is also running mprime. The load
average varies from 7 to 14, whereas before I started Freenet the load
average was around 1.3. I'm using j2re 1.5.0-beta, which I downloaded today
from Sun. top shows dozens of java processes, all the same size and all
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
___
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 3:38 PM
Subject: [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
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 06:38:25PM -0500, Doug Bostrom wrote:
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?
Yes, but we are aware of the problem.
--
44 matches
Mail list logo
