#saltr (irc2p) | I2P+ 2.6.5+ >> i2pplus.github.io | skank.i2p | git.skank.i2p | purokishi.i2p | vituperative.github.io/i2pchat | natter.i2p | notbob.i2p | ramble.i2p | shreddit.i2p | cake.i2p | /msg an op for voice

mareki2p Hi all, I have some problem with i2psnark. I managed to download the source code (from public internet). Find the problematic part. And fix it. Now, I would like to create new GitLab issue or pull request in order to discuss my issue in more detail. How do I do this? I already applied for new user account at git.idk.i2p, but I don't have access. I also registered new user account at i2pforum.i2p,

mareki2p but it is not activated yet. There are (at least) two versions of i2psnark, one is from git.idk.i2p the other is from git.skank.i2p. The second one seems more up-to-date. I fixed the issue in both versions. But the second repository seems to require user account from the public internet, which I failed to create succefully. Could somebody help me with this please? Maybe dr|z3d knows what to

mareki2p do. I have started discussion here discuss.i2p/viewtopic.php?t=163 my i2p email is marek@mail.i2p.

zzz ^^ eyedeekay

T3s|4 dr|z3d: the ^same was asked on #i2p-chat, if interested :)

eyedeekay I'll find and approve your gitlab account marek, thanks for pinging me

zzz I've started the netdb search refactor, added to my roadmap, but it's going to be a slog, target 2.8.0

eyedeekay marek you should be able to log in and create/manipulate repositories now

mareki2p Thank you eyedeekay, new GitLab issue and merge request created.

orignal zzz, don't you think that 320 tags forward might be not enough?

dr|z3d mareki2p: sorry about your issue with gitlab. if you tried to sign up with an @i2pmail.org e-mail, you'll have the same issue I have - they've blocked the mail gateway.

cumlord oh good seems marek made his way here

cumlord he was trying to compile snark from source to do something don't know if he figured it out

dr|z3d yeah, I think he fixed a bug, cumlord, his merge request looks good.,

mareki2p ~dr|z3d, yes I tried to register to gitlab.com on public internet, but it failed, github.com succeeded

mareki2p cumlord, thank you for your advice on that forum post, it helped me

dr|z3d mareki2p: yeah, github works ok, gitlab is problematic. thanks for the bug report.

cumlord good deal, np mareki2p glad you got it sorted

zzz re: 320 tags, I have no data on that

orignal but where did it come from?

orignal why 320 rather tna, say, 500?

zzz it was lower than that (160 maybe?) and you lobbied to increase it, I agreed

orignal also another question

orignal we have 64K max tagsets per session

orignal and you have 4K tags per tagset

zzz but with java streaming at the other end, it's impossible to send 320 unacked packets before the socket will error out. If you think otherwise, prove me wrong with data or analysis

orignal but 4K is only like 6M

orignal what's your max windows size?

orignal ours in 1K nowe

zzz 128, which I believe is the spec

zzz ofc with datagrams anything is possible but we have no hi speed datagram applications

orignal see what happens when I watch video from youtube

orignal and one intemediate router dies suddently

orignal maybe just drop packets

orignal as result I see massive drop and can't decryt a pakcet after

zzz if you have i2pd on both ends I can't analyze that. But my code cannot send 320 unacked packets in a row before failing afaik

orignal I belive becuse more than 320 packets got lost

zzz well, prove it with data

orignal yes, i2pd on both sides

orignal will do

zzz extend it to 5000, then log if it jumps more than 320

orignal what does signal have for this?

zzz 5K iirc

orignal so back to your 4K for each tagset

zzz but if you can send hundreds of unacked packets, you probably need to fix your congetsion control

orignal congestion control is fine and window size seems right

orignal but a router in tunnel dies suddently

orignal ofc after that it drop window size 1 or so

orignal but next packet can't be decrypted

zzz what was the window size when it died

zzz on the youtube side

orignal I belive like 500

orignal approximately

zzz I think your window size calculation is broken, not "fine"

orignal well it was 1090p

orignal 1080

orignal but 128 is not more that 200K per sec

orignal how are you going to reach like few megs with 128?

zzz depends on rtt and how often you ack

orignal assume RTT is 1 sec

zzz I've never seen it hit 128. that's why 500 sounds broken

orignal maybe that's why I2P is slow

orignal see you don't see it near 128 although the network is definitly capable for this

zzz bw = window / rtt = (128 * 1812) / 1 = 232 KBps = 1.8 Mbit/s

orignal do you have an idea why you never reach this limit?

zzz ofc. because of drops which cause the window to be reduced

orignal we are talking about kiloBytes

orignal and 232 Kilobytes is too slow

zzz then ack more often

orignal too much overhear

orignal also you can transfer only 256 Gb per session

orignal if number of tags is 4K

orignal that might be not enough for long live sessions

orignal that stay for weeks

zzz your name is on the spec next to mine

orignal yes, but I use 8K, you use 4K

orignal maybe we should use 16K?

orignal per tagset

zzz I don't remember any thing about that limit

orignal tagset# is 2 bytes

zzz if you think something should change, show up with data and test results ))

orignal I think having 4K per tagset might be problem for torrents

zzz well, run some tests and see

orignal another thing that some services etsablish hunderds of connection

orignal all of them go through the same session

zzz but I also suggest you review all your RTT/RTO/windowing/retx stuff in streaming vs. the RFCs because a window of 500 sounds wildly unlikely

orignal fine I will print out how often we change tagsets with youbube trafic

orignal yes, we are still working on streaming

orignal but remeber you need 500 if want to tranfer few megs per second

zzz I just don't remember enough to have a debate over theory. If you're hitting some limit in real life, then collect the data

orignal yes, I saw it yesterday

orignal and my analysis says because lack of tags

zzz dunno, I think people have hit 1 MBps with snark on one socket? can't remember

zzz how many pkts will you retx at once?

orignal need to check

orignal pacer is used for this

orignal e.g. no thing like "once"

zzz if you keep it pretty low you can guarantee you won't run out of tags

orignal yes, but I would not be able to watch youtube

orignal I can now be it kill a router in tunnel

zzz ofc if you have dumb code that retransmits 500 at once, you've shot your load, you're out of tags, and you're done

orignal that's the situation now

zzz well, actually, if your max window is > max tag lookahead, then you've shot your load even before you start retransmitting

orignal yes

orignal btw why we can't increase number of tags dynamcally

orignal if you send 500 and they come 320 is not a porblem

orignal because more tags will be gerenrate on each reccived packet

zzz we do that, and I believe that strategy is documented in the proposal or the spec or both

orignal will check

zzz but even sending 500 is not a probelm with a 320 limit if they come roughly in-order

zzz it's not the size of the window, it's the size of the gap

RN mind the gap

snex doxxed

onon_ zzz, Regardless of the window size, you need to use the pacing technique.

onon_ Your current СС algorithm overloads the intermediate nodes

zzz interesting theory

onon_ I understand your distrust, but unfortunately it is true

zzz only because you haven't offered any evidence. our current code matches the RFCs pretty closely; pacing would be a layer on top of that, and wouldn't be easy, but if you've implemented it and it helps, let's see the data

zzz we were talking about making a i2pd-i2pd socket faster for youtube, but now it's java streaming's fault? ))

onon_ If java i2p streaming starts working through one of the nodes in the tunnel, this really creates some problems

onon_ The current i2pd algorithm relies heavily on measuring the delay. And in this case, it starts to work poorly

onon_ As far as I could understand, the current java i2p algorithm relies heavily on packet loss

onon_ Paying less attention to the increasing delays created by the algorithm itself

onon_ The situation is further aggravated by the fact that RED is not implemented on i2pd nodes.

zzz handling loss, together with windowing and accurate RTT and RTO calculations, are the foundation of any congestion control algorithm, including ours

onon_ One of your developers clarified that you currently have the Westwood+ algorithm implemented

onon_ It's outdated.

zzz for RTT/RTO/retx, if you're doing anything different from RFC 6298, you're doing it wrong. very wrong.

onon_ i2pd currently uses a modified version of cubic

onon_ And it works pretty fast.

zzz tell that to linux, which uses westwood+. But there's plenty out there to choose from

zzz did you benchmark cubic vs. westwood+ ?

onon_ All modern linux use cubic

zzz if you say so, didn't know that.

onon_ In general, I conveyed the information as best I could. Consider working on this.

zzz but anyway, apparently you guys are working on streaming, and had some questions on that and ratchet. We're not working on either and it's not on our roadmap right now

zzz if y'all have some recommendations when you're done, I'll take notes

onon_ Agreed

zzz and you can see all our streaming params for each socket in i2psnark, if you'd like to do side-by-side comparisons to a SAM bt client using i2pd streaming

zzz we've also done extensive testing of streaming both on a testnet and point-to-point (w/o transports). testing on the real net is almost useless

orignal ratchets is my question

orignal because it's bottleneck now