Originally posted by Kivada
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Transmission 2.80 Offers Up Various Changes
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by c117152 View PostSadly it seems the protocol itself doesn't lend to multiple instances running in the same machine. We've tried different loads and setups including foregoing all firewalls and security for the sake of testing. But, the clients just misbehaved and at rare cases even seg faulted. This wasn't just transmission but other implementations as well.
Originally posted by c117152 View PostAt first, there were forwarding issues since each instance needs to open a whole lot of ports and just doesn't scale over 2-5 clients depending on the number of active torrents. Already some gigabyte (expensive at the time) cards and switches were unboxed since the overhead started to build up across the lan. This was already in the works so it didn't raise the red light.Code:gebruiker@Delta:~$ lsof -i -a -p $(pgrep transmission) COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME transmiss 28001 gebruiker 17u IPv4 3945341 0t0 TCP *:56070 (LISTEN) transmiss 28001 gebruiker 18u IPv4 3945342 0t0 TCP *:50111 (LISTEN) transmiss 28001 gebruiker 19u IPv4 3945344 0t0 UDP *:50111
Originally posted by c117152 View PostThen, we had some initial success with layer 2 switches to favor http and ftp per machine and establish quotas. But much of the network wasn't l2 so cost was unacceptable.
Originally posted by c117152 View PostSince we're not an open network, we decided to try and manage each client's machine separately instead. This already is something most companies wouldn't do. Never the less, we tried down regulating and limiting individual clients in each machine; To say, 10 peers per torrent and 50 overall connections and other figures. But, it either bottlenecked the network to the point that nothing was downloading and you couldn't even surf the web, or it killed the torrenting specifically.
Originally posted by c117152 View PostI even clearly remember the one setup that seemed to work, only the CIFS turned out unusable... Just weirdness all around. And mind you we weren't just doing just the usual amateurish protocol analyses. One of the guys was an ex signal processing dev and he run all sort of strange voodoo trying to figure out what was wrong. He's actually the one that said that the "peer in p2p means a separate lan ip". When I suggested a single daemon on a dedicated machine for the lan-wan with FTP-like user privileges. The decision was against it since the advantage versus FTP was not applicable for such a small firm. Obviously, I ignored the "decision" and went ahead to try and set it up only to discover that while many FTP daemons had their own optional user management, the bittorrent daemons did not.
Originally posted by c117152 View PostTL;DR: Been there, failed that. Like Samba and the various FTP servers (ProFTPD comes to mind), virtual users are necessary for more complex networks. It's the same pros\cons, and it's just as necessary. I suspect there is a way to still pull off a couple of daemons on the same physical machine, but I'm not convinced it will scale with firewalling and security without some real hardware costs. Still, I'd like to see a working setup...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostI did not expect that. Did you run multiple instances with seperate users?
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostCode:gebruiker@Delta:~$ lsof -i -a -p $(pgrep transmission) COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME transmiss 28001 gebruiker 17u IPv4 3945341 0t0 TCP *:56070 (LISTEN) transmiss 28001 gebruiker 18u IPv4 3945342 0t0 TCP *:50111 (LISTEN) transmiss 28001 gebruiker 19u IPv4 3945344 0t0 UDP *:50111
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostSo I guess that HTTP and FTP are used so much since there are layer 2 switches for those... Makes sense.
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostDid you try to use kernel throttling? (tc). Throttling the amount of peers will not reduce congestion, only overhead (I think).
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostIf "peer in p2p means a seperate lan ip", why not assign multiple ip's to a single NIC and try that? Maybe that is a solution. I'm genuinely surprised that setup is not working...
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostI guess that samba and ftp servers are more developed to this regard. You just found out the hard way :/
Eventually I've learned about Plan9 and how this sort of issues were addressed from the bottoms up in the kernel, protocols and even user land. It's the reason I'm fine with systemd. Sure it's not *nix like sysvinit, but *nix isn't all bed of roses either so maybe an out of the box solution is just what it takes.
Anyhow, I'm sure one day someone will build on either bittorrent or some other p2p protocol an enterprise solution. GIT vs. CVS is sorta the same idea so it's not too unlikely...
Comment
Comment