#i2p-dev (irc2p) | 2.7.0-2 | Proposal 168 review Tues. Dec. 3, 8 PM UTC #ls2

zzz here's my last snapshot at 6%

zzz 964 CyLg6w8lypk1gnAX-CdG8O4NCR86hq8ifge6QKXAoJg=]:

zzz 439 DtQsGzkbeR3nilr6ZvywR2O7-f0XaaV~YfHXohqwjgI=]:

zzz I'm moving on to test 3%

dr|z3d interesting ongoing high bandwidth on the sc router still.

dr|z3d re part tunnels, OXf4 worth keeping an eye on.

dr|z3d DtQs not registering as significant here. OXf4 currently top part tunnel requester.

dr|z3d thing is, even as the top user, it's only got a 1% share of all part tunnels.

dr|z3d interesting, seeing a ton of Failed to dispatch TunnelDataMessage (Inbound Endpoint: null) warnings right now after the sustained bandwidth.

zzz dr|z3d, re: "ourselves", both of mine were DatabaseLookupMessages... same for all of yours?

dr|z3d let's have a looksee..

dr|z3d confirmed, zzz. 8 instances in 1 file, all DbLookups.

zzz thank you, will set a trap to find the culprit

dr|z3d malicious, you think, or bug?

zzz almost certainly either our bug, or our bug not catching somebody else's bug

dr|z3d ok

dr|z3d those bandwidth spikes on sc router, 11 hours this time.

zzz can't help with that, up to you guys to manage

dr|z3d not expecting help, just reporting what I'm observing.

dr|z3d at this stage it's more curious than anything else.

zzz pretty sure 'failed to dispatch' are bloom filter hits, a small number is to be expected and is fine

dr|z3d ok, in normal operation they're not so frequent, they just happened to be coming up a lot after the bandwidth session.

zzz you could always increase the filter size if you think it's too much and you have the ram for it

dr|z3d pretty sure the filter size is already pretty generous.

dr|z3d } else if (maxMemory >= 1024*1024*1024L) {

dr|z3d // 8 MB

dr|z3d // appx 80K part. tunnels or 960K req/hr

dr|z3d m = 25;

dr|z3d that should do it, no?

zzz graph this stat to keep an eye on it router.decayingBloomFilter.TunnelIVV.dups

dr|z3d ok, will do, thanks.

zzz looks like canon maxes out at 32MB m=27 for ram > 512MB && sharebw > 8MBps

dr|z3d what have I got here, let me se.. BloomIVValidator.java you're looking at?

zzz yup

dr|z3d there are some "huge" blooms available, does canon take advantage of those?

dr|z3d } else if (KBps >= MIN_SHARE_KBPS_FOR_HUGE4_BLOOM && maxMemory >= MIN_MEM_FOR_HUGE4_BLOOM) {

dr|z3d _filter = new DecayingBloomFilter(ctx, HALFLIFE_MS, 16, "TunnelIVV", 28); // 64MB fixed

zzz as I said, we max out at 27

zzz so are you on 25 or 28?

dr|z3d private static final int MIN_SHARE_KBPS_FOR_HUGE4_BLOOM = 16384;

dr|z3d private static final long MIN_MEM_FOR_HUGE4_BLOOM = 1024*1024*1024l;

dr|z3d so, 28.

dr|z3d do we need to go bigger? :)

dr|z3d and how do the values there correspond to the m values in BuildMessageProcessor? that's not entirely clear to me.

dr|z3d well, 28 in BloomIVValidator, 25 in BuildMessageProcessor is what I've got.

zzz report the dup rate from the stat

zzz the fail to dispatch is the ivvalidator, pretty sure

dr|z3d Lifetime average is 1.0

dr|z3d -> 1.0 (8,083,624 events)

dr|z3d full dump of the stats:

dr|z3d 60 sec rate: Average: 0.999 • Highest average: 1.0 • Average event count: 7,047.623

dr|z3d Events in peak period: 171581 • Events in this period (ended 53 sec ago): 242

dr|z3d Graph Data Graph Event Count Export Data as XML

dr|z3d 60 min rate: Average: 1.0 • Highest average: 1.0 • Average event count: 425,453.895

dr|z3d Events in peak period: 1939538 • Events in this period (ended 7 min ago): 17835

dr|z3d Lifetime average: 1.0 (8,083,624 events)

dr|z3d does mean much to me.

dr|z3d *doesn't

zzz that's the TunnelIVV.dups stat?

dr|z3d yeah

dr|z3d and just for the lulz:

dr|z3d bw.sendRate Low-level send rate (B/s)

dr|z3d 60 sec rate: Average: 2,690,419.5 • Highest average: 46,081,708.0 • Average event count: 1.199

zzz so 10,000 is 1%, so 30K is pretty brutal

zzz but it's possible i2pd SSU2 is letting dups through and they're real false positives, we'd have to ask them

zzz *real positives, not false

dr|z3d I can only speculate that the high point somehow corresponds with the bandwidth spikes, but I'm a little hazy on what I'm looking at here :)

dr|z3d I mean, post-spikes, the router seemed to drop traffic and part tunnels for a while before recovering.

dr|z3d I'm also not clear on how the m value in BuildMessageProcessor relates to the (presumably?) m values in BloomIVValidator

dr|z3d should they be synced?

zzz they don't relate

zzz two different filters

dr|z3d ok, good.

zzz here's the theoretical false-pos rate:

zzz * Following stats for m=27, k=9:

zzz * 8192 1.1E-5; 10240 5.6E-5; 12288 2.0E-4; 14336 5.8E-4; 16384 0.14%

zzz so you're way over that, but we've always been over

zzz might be i2pd, dunno

dr|z3d so nothing I've explicitly done to break things? :)

zzz have to wait to ask b/c I already have a q pending in #ls2 and orignal buffer size is 1

dr|z3d haha, ok

zzz don't think so, if you're sure you're on 28

dr|z3d yeah, max is 28 here.

dr|z3d aka HUGE4_BLOOM

dr|z3d I've noticed that if you make m too high in BuilmessageProcessor, traffic ramps down, not up.

dr|z3d it looks like 25 is about as high as you want to go.

zzz dunno, haven't looked at that in years

zzz so far so good with 3% throttle:

zzz 1321 DtQsGzkbeR3nilr6ZvywR2O7-f0XaaV~YfHXohqwjgI=]:

zzz 1 -l9VwbZd1kNH0qs8r2KquI5Qt~I1O3-fnXITbanhM7Y=]:

zzz 1 IP8aEEZu2cMnXTfGKob9LX6BvohqYoP-sKUZaBdBrds=]:

dr|z3d those are tunnel drop counts?

zzz hop throttle reject or drop

dr|z3d gotcha

dr|z3d looking at the %age stats here, I don't see anything right now over 1% usage.

dr|z3d so I'm pretty sure 3% will be fine, generous even.

obscuratus Here's my list of hop throttle rejects after running over about 18 hours.

obscuratus paste.idk.i2p/SensateSwan/view

obscuratus It has about 54 items, so to big to paste.

zzz at 3%?

obscuratus Yes, running at 3% for the last 16 hours or so.

zzz ok, added it up, that's 5.5% false positive assuming only the first two are bad guys

obscuratus I've manually spot checked the profiles of the other minor leaders on that list, and most of them aren't really great peers, even if they aren't necessarily bad guys.

obscuratus For example, EftNWv has only agreed to 1 tunnel ( tunnels.lifetimeAgreedTo=1), but has failed 42 times (tunnels.lifetimeFailed=42)

obscuratus I see this pattern alot if I manually run down their profiles.

dr|z3d well, that's an interesting point. maybe some of those datapoints can be used to determine if a peer's requests should be dropped or the peer itself banned. there's a bunch of profile stats that might come in handy.

dr|z3d and aside from printing tables, not a lot of that data is currently being used afaik.

obscuratus Are the contents of the profile a hard SPEC? Could we add the throttler drops to the profile?

obscuratus Are tunnel requests?

obscuratus s/Are/Or/

dr|z3d not a hard spec, I was just thinking the same thing.

obscuratus Presumably, profile lookups would be slow-ish. Might not want to do it 100 times a second.

dr|z3d with that profile data to hand, you might even be able to persuade zzz to plot the data on a table in the console "Top 10 abusers du jour". Or something. :)

dr|z3d profiles are stored in ram I think.

dr|z3d and then periodically written to disk, not periodically enough, perhaps :)

zzz yeah obscuratus you're on the right track with your analysis

zzz I looked at #3-10 on the ilst

zzz 1 RI not found

zzz 3 slow or unreachable java

zzz 3 i2pd that we know doesn't have good profiling

zzz and 1 (#10) is a XfR Java, probably the highest one on the list that might be unjustly there

zzz so we're all good with 3%?

dr|z3d 3% sounds reasonable. what about a negative bonus for Xf peers?

dr|z3d or just X.

obscuratus It works well-enough on my router once I'm up and running at steady-state. I'll keep an eye on it next time I start a router from scratch, and it has to get integrated.

dr|z3d and it would be nice to see peers that are being actively throttled on a table somewhere, perhaps underneath the new status table on /peers?

obscuratus You'd want the throttler to get out of the way while you're getting integrated. The MIN_LIMIT should take care of that, though.

dr|z3d you could defer the throttler for a few minutes after startup, also.

obscuratus We might already have all we need with the MIN_LIMIT. I'll keep an eye on it.

zzz let's see how it goes

dr|z3d a table with actively throttled peers could have the standard edit button to effect a local ban for the duration of the session. and view profile etc. usual stuff, but it could be useful, obviating the need to grep through logs to see what's happening.

obscuratus With our current MIN_LIMIT, you need to request more than 4 tunnels in under 4 minutes. That's probably pretty rare.

obscuratus Wait, it's under 3 minutes, isn't it?

zzz 11/3

obscuratus Yeah, just under 4 minutes.

obscuratus It's worth noting (if my rusty math can be trusted) that the MIN_LIMIT will be the limiting factor until you get 400 participating tunnels when the PERCENT_LIMIT is at 3.

zzz dr|z3d, I'm pushing the "ourselves" log change, because it might be days or weeks before I see another one