Ugh. No thanks, it's simply not that predictable, and it changes constantly.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:11:51AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ack.
>
> then i hope you're pleased with my other observations?
>
> so one can say, a node is unusable without doubt if it has less than, say, 40
> connections to other nodes, is halfway useable if less than 60 and after that it's
> okay?
> maybe the mainport could give credit to this and not only show the 'first time user
> message' but also a box describing verbally how many connections there are and what
> successes the user can expect with that
> amount of connections. this might hopefully dam up the 'help! my node can't connect'
> mails and increase 1st time users' rating. communication is usually helpful ;)
> especially between cryptic and strange nodes and
> freenet maidens....
>
> >It rejected the requests because it only had one connection. It had
> >nowhere to route the request to and didn't have it in its routing table,
> >so it instantly RNF'd it.
> >
> >On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 10:54:22PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> hi there, today i've tried the new 5090 build and i'd like to share my ex=
> >periences with you.
> >>=20
> >> first of, i've run into the 'too big seednodes' problem, too.... cutting =
> >the seednodes into half and throwing away one of these halves helped, as we=
> >ll as the suggestion to strip the file of every 'estimator' line, which=20
> >> worked very well too (dunno if it breaks something either, but neverthele=
> >ss all the noderefs seem to show up in the RT)
> >>=20
> >> one of the first times i started my node, it had about ~30 connections to=
> > other nodes after not quite 1 hour. then i restarted the node (because i n=
> >eeded full network bandwidth). the next node start provided me=20
> >> ONE connection to another node in the first 20 minutes. even after 2h of =
> >uptime i've come to only 20 live connections. that's weird and very depress=
> >ing :-/ as you can imagine the node was never really useable as=20
> >> it was constantly backed off by all nodes it had connections to.
> >>=20
> >> what i've discovered then is the main reason why i write this mail.
> >> at the time my node had this only one connection to the other node i was =
> >able to track the type of the messages which got passed between the two nod=
> >es.
> >> interesting was, that the foreign node (i will now call it 'node B') was =
> >quite "gentle" to my node ('A') as it routed some DataRequests and later so=
> >me StoreDatas into my direction. so one can say that node B tried to=20
> >> integrate my node into the network and thus began to route some things in=
> >to my direction. not too many, but what i'd like to call "just right", mean=
> >s something like around 1 message per 1 minute. (hm, i suppose it=20
> >> could be more)
> >>=20
> >> after some time the passed message types shown at the ocm connections pag=
> >e looked like this:
> >>=20
> >> Accepted 3/1=09
> >> DataNotFound 0/1=09
> >> QueryRejected 3/0=09
> >> DataRequest 1/3=09
> >>=20
> >> he send 3 DataRequests, i sent 3 Accepted, and now it comes.. my node res=
> >ponded immediately with 3 QueryRejecteds! (all numbers were always equal wh=
> >en reloading the page, 2=3D2=3D2, 4=3D4=3D4, ...)
> >> the question is: why did my node reject the query?
> >> see the following stats:
> >>=20
> >> Current routingTime 0ms=09
> >> Current messageSendTimeRequest 0ms=09
> >> Pooled threads running jobs 47 (39,2%)=09
> >> Pooled threads which are idle 7=09
> >> Current upstream bandwidth usage 76 bytes/second (1,9%)=09
> >> Current estimated load for QueryReject purposes 39%=09
> >> Current estimated load for rate limiting 39,2%=09
> >> Reason for load: Load due to thread limit =3D 39,2%
> >> Load due to routingTime =3D 10% =3D 100ms / 1000ms <=3D overloadLow (100%)
> >> Load due to messageSendTimeRequest =3D 20% =3D 100ms / 500ms <=3D overloa=
> >dLow=20
> >> (100%)
> >> Load due to output bandwidth limiting =3D 2,3% because outputBytes(4589) =
> ><=3D=20
> >> limit (196608,003 ) =3D outLimitCutoff (0,8) * outputBandwidthLimit (4096=
> >) *=20
> >> 60
> >> Load due to expected inbound transfers: 0,5% because: 1000.0 req/hr *=20
> >> 9.950189371914758E-4 (pTransfer) * 86016.0 bytes =3D 85587 bytes/hr expec=
> >ted=20
> >> from current requests, but maxInputBytes/minute =3D 245760 (set input lim=
> >it) *=20
> >> 60 * 1.1 =3D 16220160 bytes/hr target
> >> Load due to expected outbound transfers: 4,2% because: 5046.5665649684115=
> >=20
> >> req/hr * 9.970089730807576E-4(2 0s, 0 1s, 2 total) (pTransfer) * 86016.0=
> >=20
> >> bytes =3D 432787 bytes/hr expected from current requests, but=20
> >> maxInputBytes/minute =3D 172032 * 60 * 0.8 =3D 10321920 bytes/hr target=
> >=20
> >>=20
> >> my node was *never* overloaded --okay, the first few seconds after node =
> >startup the messageSTR was huge-- but after that the node was constantly a=
> >round 20-40% load; bw was nearly unused (i set bw to poor=20
> >> 4kb/s up and down, but that was even never reached. a later removal of th=
> >e limit did not help, either), cpu usage was very low too as nothing happen=
> >ed on the node.
> >>=20
> >> ----> why should the node answer with a QR? i don't get it.
> >>=20
> >> of course the other node will be disppointed by my node's performance and=
> > decide to route somewhere else (or it ignores the QR and hammers regardles=
> >s earning even more QRs)
> >>=20
> >> maybe there's a nasty bug somewhere which leads to the massive QR diploma=
> >cy we can see all around freenettown hindering everything as nearly all nod=
> >es are backed off.
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> JFYI
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Support mailing list
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
> >> Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/su=
> >pport
> >> Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >--=20
> >Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
> >ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
> >
> >--O5XBE6gyVG5Rl6Rj
> >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
> >Content-Description: Digital signature
> >Content-Disposition: inline
> >
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> >iD8DBQFBGB8DHzsuOmVUoi0RAueDAJ4wnhXzEOD7UfEXZY5ohuNyp/cedACfYXD0
> >iQfaHwE+heAeBGurHTxF/+g=
> >=Wolh
> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >--O5XBE6gyVG5Rl6Rj--
> >
> >--===============2082144647==
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >Content-Disposition: inline
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Support mailing list
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
> >Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
> >Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >--===============2082144647==--
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Support mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
> Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
> Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
