Re: [Help-gnunet] INDIRECTION_TABLE_SIZE and download speed

[Christian Grothoff]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 06 September 2002 12:32 pm, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> I have increased it a few times already. One time I just set it to 2^32
> and gnunetd segfaulted when I tried to run it. How big should this have to
> be?

I think the message is confusing & we should devise a better one (and add a 
rate-limiter for not printing it too often). You will *never* be able to set 
it to a value that is large enough for not getting it. The message was 
intended to tell developers that the node will not route a request because it 
can't keep track of it. Which *is* ok. This can happen. GNUnet will keep 
working *just fine*. There is some code that could be written to use the
indirection table more efficiently, but that's beyond the point. What should
also be done is computing that value from the amount of memory that the user 
wants to dedicate to GNUnet (and btw, if you set it to 2^ 32, you'd need a 
64bit machine to be able to address that amount of memory...). But thanks for 
reporting that segfault, I'll see into it.

> Sep  6 10:29:27 ROUTING: You may want to increase INDIRECTION_TABLE_SIZE.
> The current limit 1048576 was hit.
>
> Also, I tried downloading a few files last night and the download time was
> horrendously slow. A few k per minute. I am on a lightly loaded cablemodem
> so I would expect faster.

Well, you don't know what bandwidth the other side had, do you? How much of 
your bandwidth was used at that time? (and did you run 0.4.6c?). 

Christian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9eO229tNtMeXQLkIRAoUxAJ4tFnGkXzt1Zg1EQK1iw/crBpJsKwCfeMDu
3yOn1+qr1E4sNClJEGuvuTU=
=KY+v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----