On Thursday 01 May 2008 16:20, sich wrote: > Ermanno Baschiera a ?crit : > > Hi, > > In my opinion a good bandwidth control system should be necessary. I > > read that at the moment it's not very accurate. I think that all > > people with low bandwidth can benefit from an accurate bandwidth > > control. I mean... think about new comers who want to give a try > > running Freenet... They keep the node up for some days... their MSN > > starts to disconnect every 5 minutes, surfing becomes slow and they > > often have to reload pages... even if they set their node's output > > bandwidth to a resonable value. I'm afraid they at last could give up > > and unistall freenet. > > I had those problems, but with the last 3-4 builds, it happens much > > less often, and I can't exclude that it could be my isp's fault (maybe > > throttling?) or something else, not Freenet. Anyway, an accurate > > bandwidth control cannot hurt. > > > > -Ermanno Baschiera > For me the problem is that Freenet don't use all the bandwitch > avaible... I have very good bandwitch but Freenet is only using around > 40ko/s...
Do you have 0% pInstantReject as well? If so, your node is accepting every request sent to it, yet is still not using much bandwidth (compared to what it could do). Which is what I find on my node when I run with a high bwlimit: our neighbours simply don't send us enough requests to use up all the bandwidth, even taking into account that their neighbours are probably rejecting a lot of requests, so we probably get a lot of the rejected requests due to not being backed off. I don't know that there's much that can be done about this. Load limiting adapts to the average network conditions, and we can't go too much beyond that without breaking routing. > > sich -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20080501/bf21d333/attachment.pgp>
