On 03/12/15 17:48, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 03/12/15 07:20, Victor Denisov wrote: >>> As a /user/, freenet is extraordinarily heavy for the computers I've >>> used it on (some of them not that low spec). Disk trashing in some of >>> them was so interfering with normal use to make it unbearable. >> It's gotten from "computer is unusable when Freenet is running" to >> "computer is barely usable when Freenet is running" (which absolutely >> *is* an improvement, btw). > Umm... good? :| > >> However, Freenet is still extremely >> IO-limited (to the point that I have to limit bandwidth to around >> 200-300 KB/s, or the node is backed off almost 100% of the time) > This is surprising. Are you sure it is actually I/O bound and not just > having an impact on the rest of the system? Is there any way you could > test this? We need to know whether it is actually disk limited or > whether it is merely unfair on the rest of the system, since the fixes > may be different. > > Backoff should not be related to I/O *at all*, if you mean the number of > peers listed as "BACKED OFF" (or "BUSY"). Unless you mean something > else? It is quite possible that there are multiple simultaneous problems.
It *is* possible that other nodes could backoff your node because of really slow disk I/O, because we have to check the datastore when accepting a request. This would result in fewer/slower peers. It's worth testing this empirically. Possibly we should keep some statistics, e.g. average time taken checking the datastore (separately for hits and misses; most misses won't do any disk reads because they're served from the in-memory structures).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
