IRCaBot 2.1.0
GPLv3 © acetone, 2021-2022
#saltr
/2024/01/28
~dr|z3d
@RN
@RN_
@StormyCloud
@T3s|4
@T3s|4_
@eyedeekay
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
+Anomaly
+FreefallHeavens
+Xeha
+acetone
+bak83
+cumlord
+hk
+poriori
+profetikla
+uop23ip
+weko
Arch
Danny
DeltaOreo
FreeRider
Irc2PGuest12106
Irc2PGuest32754
Irc2PGuest43409
Nausicaa
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
Over1
anon2
anu3
boonst
floatingspawk
itsjustme
mareki2pb
not_bob_afk
plap
shiver_
simprelay
solidx66
thetia
u5657_1
weko zzz: What is reference for streaming protocol and realization?
orignal basically what is it based on?
orignal such NACKs is veru exotic thing
weko I will do tests with UDP, but I guess most problems with speed in streaming protocol
weko especially with SSU2 as transport
weko streaming protocol or/and realization *
zzz weko, orignal, streaming is all jrandom 2003, before my time
weko Realization also?
zzz what do you mean by realization? it's originally jrandom, but we've done a lot of fixes in 20 years
tennis2 Eye-eye peers, its me again. Re the above re above "i2psnark dropping all the metadata" (and re-reading disks) has anyone looked at the code, does it check out?
tennis2 If you like it and like the idea of not re-reading all the torrents on the disk it would be great if you might add it to your repo, with the above sudo command to autostart it.
orignal zzz but maybe you know what was the underlying protocol
orignal the questuion is why special protocol was required rather than ordinary TCP?
zzz orignal, weko i2p-projekt.i2p/en/docs/api/streaming see history section at bottom
zzz the full streaming implementation was deployed with a sliding window protocol and optimizations to take into account the high bandwidth x delay product.
zzz some reasons:
zzz dest vs. IP; 0-RTT delivery; signatures
zzz you would have to write a user-mode TCP impl even if you did TCP
zzz you can find a lot of the 2004-2005 discussion in the gmane.network.i2p newsgroup at NNTP news.gmane.io
zzz you can either load it up in thunderbird or I might have a tarball somewhere
zzz found it
zzz ^^^ orignal weko
orignal yes I'm reading
orignal I know I have to implement own TCP but it ould be a strdard thing
orignal in our opinion NACKs cause a lot of inefficiency
weko I don't know about nacks
weko But I guess most problem is streaming. As I said, I will test with UDP
orignal every time we receive a NACK it produced severe speed degradation
zzz orignal, weko, I have some advice if you're working on streaming
zzz don't do it on testnet (at least not at first) - it's too messy, too hard to get reproducible results
weko [15:56:53] <zzz> don't do it on testnet (at least not at first) - it's too messy, too hard to get reproducible results
zzz you want to do standalone loopback tests
weko Ye I know
zzz i2ptunnel client to server
zzz and use wget or curl on a big file
weko But some bugs we can see even at testnet
zzz but you have to put delay and drop in the middle, you have to write that code if you don't have it
zzz test say 100ms to 45s delay, and 0 to 10% drop
weko zzz: I used wget, but wrote special tool
zzz keep careful records, make charts or graphs of bandwidth vs. delay and bandwidth vs. drop
zzz change only one thing at a time
zzz look for how fast it recovers from stalls or if it gets "stuck" at a low bandwidth
zzz also track retransmission % and window size trends
weko I guess best way to repeat TCP algos
weko But TCP doesn't have NACKs
zzz right. the RFC I gave you the other day is important
weko And for i2p we can do multipath
zzz acks and nacks is the same thing, don't let it confuse you. nacks just tells you where the "holes" are
weko I need more research
zzz yeah we spent years on it. Don't make quick changes; test test test before checking anything in
zzz if you can go i2ptunnel-streaming-i2cp you could use my i2cp loopback tester so you don't have to write anything... but I don't think you support streaming to i2cp?
weko Why window size maximum is 128?
weko I guess you have better implemention than i2pd, then why so low window?
zzz don't know, but that's really big
weko Nope
zzz what's our max bytes? 1815? that's 232KB in flight
weko Just calc speed for typical i2p 3+3 ping - 500ms, and with mtu
zzz sure but you have to send 232KB w/o any loss to hit 128 window
zzz what window sizes are you seeing on testnet?
weko Maximum 400KB/s with 500ms ping
zzz with no drop?
zzz but what's the window size
weko [16:10:54] <zzz> with no drop?
weko Ye i2pd can
zzz and RTT and RTO
weko zzz: I set 4096 maximum, and saw it
zzz I doubt it, that's 7.5 MB in flight
zzz you shouldn't be buffering that much in the routers anyway
zzz add 0.5 or 0.25% drop to get a more realistic test
weko Okay for 500 ping and 14MB/s
weko zzz: I added
weko Can test more
zzz 500 round trip or per hop?
weko So it works only with ntcp2 because bad steaming realization
weko zzz: round trip
weko So unrealistic on real net
weko But 128 really to small
weko Too
zzz disagree. 128 is fine in real world.
zzz you can't send 7.5 MB at once, nobody has a buffer that big, it will all get dropped along the way
weko zzz: when routers can give to us 1MB/s, we have only 400KB/s
weko So I just suggest increase to 256
zzz there's a lot of overhead
weko But I know I need note tests etc
zzz if you're going to 4096, you probably have bugs. It shouldn't go that high
zzz are you doing AIMD?
weko zzz: I agree about 4096
zzz you need proper AIMD algorithms
zzz the goal is not only to go fast. you also have to be _efficient_. you can't retransmit or nack like crazy
weko What is AIMD
weko All In Mind?
weko We don't use AIMD
zzz when you get a nack, cut your window in half
zzz actually, now we cut it to one I think
zzz you have a LOT to fix then
weko I know)
zzz this is basic stuff
weko Agree
weko Anyway window 128c can sometimes limiting i2p speed rn
weko 128*
zzz ok, but once you do AIMD it won't be a problem
weko With bad rtt but good bandwidth
zzz actually we are now using TCP Westwood+ algorithms everywhere
weko Hmm
zzz we spent about a year converting everything to Westwood+
zzz and fixing our timers
zzz here's the references from our javadocs"
zzz * A Westwood+ bandwidth estimator with
zzz * a first stage anti-aliasing low pass filter based on RTT,
zzz * and the time-varying Westwood filter based on inter-arrival time.
zzz * Ref: TCP Westwood: End-to-End Congestion Control for Wired/Wireless Networks
zzz * Casetti et al
zzz * (Westwood)
zzz * Ref: End-to-End Bandwidth Estimation for Congestion Control in Packet Networks
zzz * Grieco and Mascolo
zzz * (Westwood+)
zzz * Adapted from: Linux kernel tcp_westwood.c (GPLv2)
zzz * @since 0.9.46
weko Oh then we know reference
weko It's good
zzz if you are hitting 4096 window with 500 ms ping and 1% drop, you are very very very broken. You should be more like 20 window size for that
weko zzz: yes I know. But I had 0% drops at tunnel layer
weko I understand about what you
zzz right, that's why you need to test standalone so NTCP2 or SSU2 don't "fix" the drops for you
zzz because the java routers in the network do a LOT of dropping, so you either need java routers in your testnet, or a standalone test
zzz a java router is not going to buffer 7.5 MB
weko zzz: i2pd also drops
weko Packet permutations is problem for i2pd rn
weko Happens in ssu2 with i2pd and I guess with ntcp2 and ssu2 in java
weko I really need sleep... with, in... Damn
weko zzz: transits not necessary to have such buffers
zzz you also have to be efficient. a TCP ack is 40 bytes. A streaming ack is 1028 bytes thru a tunnel. you can't be sending acks and nacks like crazy
zzz what router bandwidth limits are you using on the testnet?
zzz you may also wish to use i2psnark standalone in debug mode to see what our typical window/RTT/RTO/etc. values are