Cache-EX Loopback

[CapNCooK]

max_time is same in both cases
8755 and cacheex_maxhop = 3, Size is 3000/4500
latest builds and cacheex_maxhop = 2 + cacheex_drop_csp = 1, Size is 10 000/12 000 (This situation puts me with a choice: either to switch to an older version or delete some peers, I chose the first)

I will replicate your test tonight, to see where exactly this increase comes from. Will report back.

[ametovic]

Yea, probably there is more to it.. 8895 was a _big_ update (see release notes here: http://www.streamboard.tv/wbb2/threa...605#post477605), which also introduced some new bugs (like cacheex loopback, a CWC compatibility problem and more).
The things known were fixed in later builds.

8755.. well, its upto your own choice. But looking at the timeline and changes fro 8755 to latest svn..
Lots, and lots of things are fixed and changed.

Did you ever try to use latest SVN, and adjust settings like i advised earlier ? (to get a decent cpu usage, size and hits ?)

updating to latest SVN was part of morning coffee ritual :)

only way to get town to 4000 from 11-12000 in latest SVN is to drop hop to 1 and start setting CAID filters... since I only need it for home use + friend base I coudl do that but I am trying to help narrow down the issue(if it exists). I also can live with 12K in cache if its needed but my observation was that I do not get any more hits if the cache size increases.

I also found that dropping CSP cache lowers the hit rate(I am aware that some might argue CSP cache is not good) but that is my "non scientific" observation :)

Cheers,
amet

[CapNCooK]

.. only way to get town to 4000 from 11-12000 in latest SVN is to drop hop to 1 and start setting CAID filters .. but my observation was that I do not get any more hits if the cache size increases.

More important is, you have same hits with lowering hops to =1 in latest SVN.
Many peers are overdriving there cache-ex, without even realising it. One single peer can blast resources to their maximum, so having dozens of users is sense-less in current SVN.

Anyways, less incoming hops.., generates more size and equal hits.. I do remember blueven saying that <8695 doesn't make use of a big part of what is actually beeing sent..
That would explain the larger size (- since its now "all" beeing used and added to size).

However, its long time ago and i have to verify. Will try to replicate later.

[ametovic]

More important is, you have same hits with lowering hops to =1 in latest SVN.
Many peers are overdriving there cache-ex, without even realising it. One single peer can blast resources to their maximum, so having dozens of users is sense-less in current SVN.

Anyways, less incoming hops.., generates more size and equal hits.. I do remember blueven saying that <8695 doesn't make use of a big part of what is actually beeing sent..
That would explain the larger size (- since its now "all" beeing used and added to size).

However, its long time ago and i have to verify. Will try to replicate later.

I am not sure that's the case, 0100 is great ... others not so good. lowering to hop 1 usually means dropping to about 1-2K from 11-12K and loosing some of the hits.

let me know if you want me to test/try anything.

Cheers,
amet