On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:05:09 -0500, Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:59:32 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote: > > > > On 22/01/2011, at 7:55 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:51:35 -0700, Ray Jones wrote: > > >> > > >> If I understand correctly.... > > >> > > >> UDP has no such thing as flow control. So even though your > > >> machine reads only X packets per second, the sending machine is > > >> still sending and you're still receiving. If the packets build > > >> up too far your machine will drop them, but you've already used > > >> the bandwidth to get them there before they were dropped! > > > > > > I agree it's a terrible waste -- but, I say, tough luck. Surely > > > the senders will throttle back when they start seeing some of > > > their packets not being acknowledged. (Like I said, we should > > > avoid this situation as much as possible, but ultimately the user > > > has to be in control. The network, selfish as this might sound, > > > comes second!) > > > > NO! We're using UDP - UDP packets have no acknowledgment. TCP would > > behave like you describe, but UDP senders have no way of knowing > > that there's a problem. > > > > Freenet itself acknowledges packets, > > That's what I was referring to. > > > and that's part of the rate limiting, which obviously has some bugs. > > Not reading the packets will work for a while, but when packets are > > read and ack'd the senders will burst again, not knowing there's a > > limit. > > Sure they will know there is a limit -- they will know how long it > took for the packets to get acked, and how many were dropped. It's not > perfect, but I'm sure they will know enough to pull back when > necessary. > > > The only solution is to fix the limiter bugs, which is tough > > for a project with so few developers. > > Fixing that is definitely essential, although either way I think the > user's limit has to be paramount. (Perhaps there are other ways to > avoid dropping, like having the UDP packets queued into Freenet's > memory, but not used more than XKiB/second -- so the long ack-ing > works for a bit longer, rather than dropping the packets, which is > worse.)
Bah. Ok, I see your point. The damage is already done when we are flooded with traffic. There is no point hurting the user more by dumping those already-arrived packets :b. _______________________________________________ Support mailing list [email protected] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
