On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 06:32:36AM -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:21:14PM -0800, Steven wrote:
> > since multiplexing has been ported to the stable branch of freenet, we can
> > have a MUCH lower maxConnection setting right? I used allow 300, now I only
> > allow 2
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:21:14PM -0800, Steven wrote:
> since multiplexing has been ported to the stable branch of freenet, we can
> have a MUCH lower maxConnection setting right? I used allow 300, now I only
> allow 20. Is this a bad idea?
20 connections max is quite low. You have to all
EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [freenet-support] number of connections
>
>
> since multiplexing has been ported to the stable branch of
> freenet, we can
> have a MUCH lower maxConnection setting right? I used allow
> 300, now I only
> allow 20. Is this a bad idea?
&g
I've noticed that the number of backed off nodes has decreased since I updated
to 5050...
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
> I've limited the amount of connections my node can make to
> 50. I don't know
> how this effects the network, how it effects my node's
> ability find files or
> anything, all I know is this keeps freenet from eating all of
> my system's
> resources. Please tell me if their is a better way
On 2003-12-11T01:48:26-0800, Steven wrote:
> $ netstat | grep -c tcp
> 370
As you wrote, the above also counts non-freenet connections. It
also counts connections already closed by freenet (by your node
or the other one), but TCP still keeps them just in case there is
still a packet flying arroun
I've limited the amount of connections my node can make to 50. I don't know
how this effects the network, how it effects my node's ability find files or
anything, all I know is this keeps freenet from eating all of my system's
resources. Please tell me if their is a better way.
Anyway, someth
