On Friday 02 May 2008 04:13, Evan Daniel wrote: > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > 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. > > You could increase the number of peers, and thus get more traffic...
True, but: 1) We'd have to scale it by bandwidth. I just turned that off due to some negative testing results (much fewer non-backed-off peers, also slightly lower payload although that may be illusory due to low uptime). 2) If we have 50 peers per opennet node, that will give darknet-only nodes a significant performance penalty. Therefore there needs to be a good reason to do it. We might make some progress if we had a new load management system (e.g. token passing), under which we could explicitly tune how much we can use ubernodes... > > Evan Daniel -------------- 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/20080502/cf868611/attachment.pgp>
