So in summary, for the small file the two networks were comparable - 1:30ish vs 2:00ish. For the ISO, I'm not sure if there was any conclusion?
My 2 cents: Inserts are much faster after the changes to load limiting just before xmas, or at least, they should be. Generally freenet 0.7 uses close to the bandwidth limit now, which it certainly didn't before. Comments? On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 06:12:31AM -0800, this.is.not.my.real.email.address wrote: > I saw the following message on Frost's Freenet board. Scroll down to the > end to see the results. With my experiance uploading and downloading files > on the the 0.7 network, there is no way I have found to make my speed even > come close to what they can do on the 0.5 network. Why is the 0.7 network > so much slower? > > > ----- Freenet Is Dead at Tb3nN9rhFbV6C99cN+O1fZM79rQ ----- 2007.01.20 - > 04:59:37GMT ----- > > It looks like development has stopped. > More waste time do nothing prove nothing simulations are in the works. > LOL!!! > Why? Look what the sims have done for us. Nothing. > It's beginning to look like 0.7 is doomed. > Toad is all but silent. > > ----- Anonymous ----- 2007.01.20 - 15:03:09GMT ----- > > The 0.7 freenet is working the way Toad wanted. He didn't want open net and > didn't want it to be used for file trading, so as far as he is concerned its > working as designed. There is no need to do any more development. > > ----- Anonymous ----- 2007.01.20 - 21:32:37GMT ----- > > Freenet 0.7 is brilliant for file trading though! > > check out all the stuff available via Thaw and advertised in the music > boards. > > ----- Anonymous ----- 2007.01.21 - 16:44:34GMT ----- > > Brilliant for file trading? I have an outstanding challenge to any of the > 0.7 users who would want to race. So far there have been no takers. How > about you? > > ----- Anonymous ----- 2007.01.22 - 10:20:15GMT ----- > > OK, sure. How should we do it to ensure the most accurate results? > > 1. We should test both inserts and retrieves. > 2. We should test a range of filesizes. > 3. We should do it several times with different files of almost identical > sizes, so we can see the average time and how much the variance is. > 4. We could do it with long-running nodes and freshly installed nodes (I > understand 0.5 needs some time to warm up) > 5. We could do it with different max memory configurations. > > My internet usage is capped to a certain amount per month, so I throttle my > Freenet bandwidth accordingly. Can you throttle Freenet 0.5 bandwidth? > > We could start with a simple test. The Linux version of Firefox 2 is > 9.2MBfrom here: > http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ > > I will unthrottle my bandwidth and insert that into Freenet 0.7 and see how > long it takes. There is a problem in that Freenet doesn't record how long an > insert takes, so I'll have to watch it regularly. But it will give us an > idea. I will record the % at regular intervals. I don't have any other > inserts or retrievals going. [See below for the results]. > > My setup: 1.4GHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 128MB allocated to Freenet. Linux > 2.6.18kernel, Sun Java > 1.5.0_10-b03. Freenet runs on a cryptsetup encrypted partition. Consumer IDE > hard disk. No other applications running so swap isn't being used. Internet > connection is a consumer ADSL, download speed about 4Mbps, upload about > 500kbps. > > Node Version Information > > * Freenet 0.7 Build #1011 r11589 > * Freenet-ext Build #9 r11062 > > Node status overview > > * bwlimitDelayTime: 608ms > * nodeAveragePingTime: 221ms > * networkSizeEstimateSession: 401 nodes > * nodeUptime: 11h7m > * routingMissDistance: 0.1352 > * backedOffPercent: 79.8% > * pInstantReject: 0.0% > > Current activity > > * Inserts: 29 > * Requests: 99 > * Transferring Requests: 17 > * ARK Fetch Requests: 6 > * Total Output: 480 MiB (12.2 KiBps) > * Payload Output: 335 MiB (8.58 KiBps) (69%) > * Total Input: 432 MiB (11.0 KiBps) > * Output Rate: 13.8 KiBps (of 100 KiBps) > * Input Rate: 12.2 KiBps (of 100 KiBps) > > Peer statistics > > * Connected: 3 > * Backed off: 5 > * Disconnected: 6 > > Inserting firefox-2.0.0.1.tar.gz (9.2MB), no compression, default priority > (high). > > I've set the bandwidth limits to 100KBps which is essentially uncapped. > My CPU usage was minimal (< 5%) and load average was very small (< 0.2). > > Time %Completed > ---- ----- > 8:05 0.0% > 8:11 3.6% > 8:15 6.5% > 8:20 11.2% > 8:25 16.4% > 8:30 21.4% > 8:37 27.5% > 8:40 29.7% > 8:45 34.5% > 8:50 38.6% > 8:55 42.8% > 9:00 47.1% > 9:05 51.6% > 9:10 55.9% > 9:15 60.4% > 9:20 65.4% > 9:25 69.5% > 9:30 73.6% > 9:35 78.6% > 9:41 84.4% > 9:45 88.0% > 9:50 93.2% > 9:55 97.2% > 9:57 100.0% > > So that is about 5MB per hour for insertions. > About 100MB a day. > About 1.4kB per second. > About 11 kbps. > Enough to upload an album or two a day; a 700MB DivX would take about a > week. > > In the statistics above, the Payload Output says about 9kB per second, so > what is the rest of the bandwidth being used for? I imagine it must be for > routing other people's inserts and requests. > > If someone else could retrieve this file and log how long it takes, that > would be useful. A detailed log would be interesting, although the insert > went at a pretty uniform speed. Give also some details of your setup i.e. > memory, CPU, number of peers, bandwidth, etc. > > The key is: > > CHK at U2LCyKPn2E79BSfDMaSuJcaYy3v0iCe4BJmIGUf7Ybg > ,ec3MfYKBF9Jz0xt2j94kpZyEB0hJS~ZhgMG~HgfVfqk,AAIC--8/firefox-2.0.0.1.tar.gz > > If anyone else wants to repeat the insert experiment, they should do it with > a different file, since inserting this file a second time should go much > quicker in theory. Possibly more peers would help, I have relatively few > peers, and a lot were backed-off. > > Freenet 0.7 optimizes retrievals over inserts, so I would expect the > retrieval to be a lot faster. > > It will be interesting to see how this goes on 0.5. In the interests of > fairness, please say how your setup might be optimized more than a newbie's > installation, because I know 0.5 is supposed to take a week or so to get up > to speed. > > ----- Anonymous ----- 2007.01.22 - 16:55:34GMT ----- > > The 0.5 network isn't the best for inserting small files like that one, but > does OK. Not to give away too much information, my pc is an AMD Athalon > running linux 2.4 and java 1.5. My network is 1.5MB down and 384KB up, and > Im running both the 0.5 network and 0.7 network on the same box. I inserted > it with fuqid with 10 threads up and 30 threads down. I could have easily > doubled the number of upload threads which would cut the upload time in half > without overloading my node. > > I get to pick the next file we test with. > > > Time Status Speed Threads > 6:35 start 4.3k/s 10 > 6:58 36% 7.0k/s 10 > 7:08 50% 2.8k/S 10 > 7:15 62% 4.3k/s 10 > 7:20 71% 5.7k/s 10 > 7:26 77% 2.8k/s 10 > 7:30 84% 2.4k/s 9 > 7:37 91% 2.8k/s 5 > 7:46 95% 1.4k/s 2 > 7:52 finish > > > > Connections open (Inbound/Outbound/Limit) 346 (337/9/500) > Transfers active (Transmitting/Receiving) 38 (25/13) > Data waiting to be transmitted/received 208 Bytes/None > Amount of data transmitted/received over currently open connections 862 > MiB/1,010 MiB > Total amount of data transmitted/received 50 MiB/212 MiB > Number of distinct nodes connected 346 > > > Type Sent (failed)/Received (failed) > Accepted 29340 (248)/80357 (0) > AnnouncementFailed 15 (0)/78 (0) > DataInsert 999 (0)/170 (0) > DataNotFound 26984 (79)/35723 (0) > DataReply 2390 (0)/2445 (0) > DataRequest 89298 (14)/29542 (0) > InsertReply 104 (0)/523 (0) > InsertRequest 1244 (0)/273 (0) > NodeAnnouncement 94 (0)/16 (0) > QueryAborted 60 (0)/19 (0) > QueryRejected 268 (3)/49017 (0) > QueryRestarted 144944 (608)/236072 (0) > StoreData 2055 (9)/2558 (0) > > ----- Anonymous ----- 2007.01.23 - 04:19:11GMT ----- > > The following is a reply from an anonymous user on the 0.5 network. I don't > know what their pc configuration is. > > >----- Anonymous ----- 2007.01.23 - 03:10:26GMT ----- > > > >I didn't see your post until about 12 hours after you posted, and the > download took 27 min. to complete. > > > > > Now it's my turn to pick a file. > > I've downloaded the Knoppmyth ISO file from > http://www.mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html and will begin uploading it soon. > This is a good linux distro for anyone with a spare pc. With a video card, > this can turn an ordinary pc into a very nice PVR. > > Im inserting the file with fuqid. I will keep you informed of my upload > status. Please tell me when you begin to upload the file. > > Time Status Speed Threads > 20:16 begin encoding 20 > > ----- Anonymous ----- 2007.01.23 - 05:06:26GMT ----- > > The file was split into 100MB blocks and is being uploaded now. > > CHK at mWB4qm46lzU5fatyKPFC27QN63oOAwI > ,WnOHZz1cbk8CX0ojdvzqFQ/KnoppMythR5E50.iso.001 > CHK at eTWRGYjhw-QiGjnR6EMSshNReP4OAwI > ,Km~kXrIFaoS3YHxq3pzslg/KnoppMythR5E50.iso.002 > CHK at 9fz > ~btHNF09nnJ8JslaPzp9yRnYOAwI,OYv3vGIXuHbbB6Awt27JVQ/KnoppMythR5E50.iso.003 > CHK at iSlZHnuIKDatowBKQakjuRZ87rMOAwI > ,A9NSo7jmfqkZ960iVG1IPA/KnoppMythR5E50.iso.004 > CHK at 2gzbBa6w24d7HeVFy > ~hTFv0YcIwOAwI,uBPmFVhbQ1nQUXUEwDAGwg/KnoppMythR5E50.iso.005 > CHK at 3VHWmRI288WDOPdJoaUMifHwjfgLAwI > ,chRyaMSs8vQIc8B-gpK9iA/KnoppMythR5E50.iso.006 > > Time Block Status Speed Threads > 20:16 begin encoding 20 > 21:00 001 12% 11.4k/s 20 > > ----- Anonymous ----- 2007.01.23 - 06:11:08GMT ----- > > Time Block Status Speed Threads > 20:16 begin encoding 20 > 21:00 001 12% 11.4k/s 20 > 22:08 001 31% 3.4k/s 20 > > ----- thorn in the side at qLt68MNMtiOi3pCgkZ_pf74PB+o ----- 2007.01.23 - > 15:33:55GMT ----- > > Date Time Block Status Speed Threads > 1/22 20:16 begin encoding 20 > 1/22 21:00 001 12% 11.4k/s 20 > 1/22 22:08 001 31% 3.4k/s 20 > 1/23 07:30 001/002 100% 11.4k/s 20 > 1/23 07:30 003 91% 11.4k/s 12 > 1/23 07:30 004 1% 11.4k/s 8 > > ----- thorn in the side at qLt68MNMtiOi3pCgkZ_pf74PB+o ----- 2007.01.23 - > 19:09:15GMT ----- > > Date Time Block Status Speed Threads > 1/22 20:16 begin encoding 20 > 1/22 21:00 001 12% 11.4k/s 20 > 1/22 22:08 001 31% 3.4k/s 20 > 1/23 07:30 001/002 100% 11.4k/s 20 < 001 finished at 1/23 > 01:49 and 002 finished at 1/23 06:16 > 1/23 07:30 003 91% 11.4k/s 12 > 1/23 07:30 004 1% 11.4k/s 8 > 1/23 11:01 003 100% 5.7k/s 20 < 003 finished at 1/23 09:17 > 1/23 11:01 004 99% 5.7k/s 2 > 1/23 11:01 005 19% 5.7k/s 18 > > The 501MB insert will probably be finished by the time I get back from my > next class. > > Has anyone on the 0.7 network finised downloading the Firefox insert? > > ----- thorn in the side at qLt68MNMtiOi3pCgkZ_pf74PB+o ----- 2007.01.24 - > 00:43:41GMT ----- > > The upload has completed. The 0.7 network has been spanked. It didn't even > take 24 hours to upload an ISO on the 0.5 network, but it could take weeks > on the 0.7 network. > > Date Time Block Status Speed Threads > 1/22 20:16 begin encoding 20 > 1/22 21:00 001 12% 11.4k/s 20 > 1/22 22:08 001 31% 3.4k/s 20 > 1/23 07:30 001/002 100% 11.4k/s 20 < 001 finished at 1/23 > 01:49 and 002 finished at 1/23 06:16 > 1/23 07:30 003 91% 11.4k/s 12 > 1/23 07:30 004 1% 11.4k/s 8 > 1/23 11:01 003 100% 5.7k/s 20 < 003 finished at 1/23 09:17 > 1/23 11:01 004 99% 5.7k/s 2 > 1/23 11:01 005 19% 5.7k/s 18 > 1/23 16:00 004 100% ? ? < 004 finished at 11:08 > 1/23 16:00 005 100% ? ? < 005 finished at 14:45 > 1/23 16:00 006 100% ? ? < 006 finished at 13:56 > > ----- thorn in the side at qLt68MNMtiOi3pCgkZ_pf74PB+o ----- 2007.01.24 - > 12:56:49GMT ----- > > Here are some download results from the 0.5 network. It looks like the > 0.7network would be slower then the > 0.5 network on download speed too. > > >----- downloader at wGd_NnxJzMlza0XwDZVZiV7RLF4 ----- 2007.01.24 - > >03:39:18GMT > ----- > > > >Download completed. Total download time: 21 Hrs. > >(those last few blocks always take the longest, but that's freenet) > > > >Not my fastest download, but then I don't think this was the most popular > file either. > > > > and > > >----- AnotherAnon ----- 2007.01.23 - 23:30:12GMT ----- > > > >KnoppMythR5E50.iso.001 50% > >KnoppMythR5E50.iso.002 42% > >KnoppMythR5E50.iso.003 45% > >KnoppMythR5E50.iso.004 3% > >KnoppMythR5E50.iso.005 0% > >KnoppMythR5E50.iso.006 Done in 10 hours at 12:30 GMT > >Currently it is 13:30 GMT > > > _______________________________________________ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20070127/0da67dec/attachment.pgp>
