I2P Dev Meeting - January 25, 2005

13:50 <jrandom> 0) hi 13:50 <jrandom> 1) 0.5 status 13:50 <jrandom> 2) sam.net 13:50 <jrandom> 3) gcj progress 13:50 <jrandom> 4) udp 13:50 <jrandom> 5) ??? 13:50 <jrandom> 0) hi 13:50 * jrandom waves belatedly 13:51 <jrandom> weekly status notes posted up to http://dev.i2p.net/pipermail/i2p/2005-January/000560.html 13:51 <+postman> hi 13:51 * brachtus waves back 13:52 * cervantes waves a detention slip for tardiness 13:52 <jrandom> yeah yeah, blame the code for sucking me in 13:52 <jrandom> ok, jumping into 1) 0.5 status 13:53 <jrandom> lots of progress since last week - all the messy problems we had with the new crypto are resolved without much trouble 13:54 <jrandom> the latest http://dev.i2p.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/i2p/router/doc/tunnel-alt.html?rev=HEAD is very likely to be what we deploy in 0.5 and beyond, unless/until people find any problems with it 13:55 <jrandom> not sure if i have anything else to add beyond whats in the email 13:55 <jrandom> anyone have any questions/concerns? 13:56 <Ragnarok> what's performance going to be like? 13:56 <jrandom2p> (not me) 13:56 <jrandom> Ragnarok: tunnel performance should be much better 13:56 <frosk> any significant overhead compared to what we have today? 13:57 <jrandom> frosk: sometimes 13:57 <jrandom> frosk: when we can coallesce messages in a tunnel, the overhead will be minimal 13:58 <jrandom> however, when we cannot coallesce or when its not effective, there can be nontrivial waste 13:58 <frosk> i see 13:59 <jrandom> otoh, we're trimming some of the absurdities of our current i2np (where we currently prepend a 32 byte SHA256 before each I2NP message, even ones within garlic messages, etc) 13:59 <jrandom> the fragmentation and fixed size will be an issue we need to tune with, but there is lots of room to do so 14:01 <jrandom> ok, anytihng else on 0.5? 14:02 <jrandom> if not, moving on to 2) sam.net 14:02 <jrandom> smeghead has ported the java sam client lib to .net (yay!) 14:02 <jrandom> smeghead: wanna give us the rundown? 14:03 <smeghead> sure 14:03 <smeghead> i'm writing tests for it, should have those in cvs in the next couple of days 14:04 <smeghead> should work with .net/mono/portable.net 14:04 <smeghead> and c# and vb.net 14:05 <frosk> (and all of the other languages that works with .net i suppose) 14:05 <cervantes> (urgh) 14:05 <smeghead> the interface is dirt simple 14:05 <smeghead> just register listener methods with SamReader, or subclass SamBaseEventHandler and override methods as necessary 14:05 <smeghead> yes, i aim to make it fully CLR compatible 14:06 <jrandom> wikked 14:06 <cervantes> cool... smeg.net ;-) 14:06 <frosk> goodie 14:06 <smeghead> really not much else to it 14:06 <+protokol> CLR? 14:06 <smeghead> common language runtime 14:06 <smeghead> the .net equivalent of the JRE 14:07 <+protokol> JRE? 14:07 <+protokol> just kidding 14:07 <jrandom> !thwap protokol 14:07 <Ragnarok> jrandom: how's the sam bridge holding up these days? were all the bt related issues resolved? 14:08 <Tracker> I doubt it, i2p-bt can even drive my amd64 3000 mad, cpu-wise... 14:08 <jrandom> Ragnarok: i havent touched it lately. there's still the outstanding choke issue that polecat came up with, but where the i2p-bt<-->sam bridge is getting off, i'm not sure 14:09 <jrandom> hmm, failed connections will force full ElGamal instead of AES 14:10 <Ragnarok> ok 14:10 <jrandom> we should be able to reduce some of that after 0.5, but only partially 14:12 <Tracker> Ok, the I2P will be good for anonymus trackers but not for anonymus clients. Just try to think what happens on a really popular torrent with some 1000 seeds and leechs. 14:12 <jrandom> ok, the sam.net stuff sounds cool, thanks again smeghead. i'm looking forward to the unit tests and perhaps a demo app :) 14:12 <ant> <Evil-Brotten> hello everbody 14:12 <smeghead> a demo app, yes i'll do that too 14:13 <smeghead> i've ported yours in fact 14:13 <jrandom> Tracker: i2p can handle anonymous clients just fine, we just need to figure out whats wrong with the i2p-bt<-->sam bridge to reduce the full ElG's 14:13 <smeghead> they're just bug-ridden atm 14:13 <ant> <Evil-Brotten> deer? 14:13 <jrandom> hi Evil-Brotten 14:13 <ant> <Evil-Brotten> hello 14:14 <jrandom> weekly dev meeting going on, feel free to stick around. deer is a gateway to i2p/iip 14:14 <ant> <Evil-Brotten> are you an i2p expert? 14:14 <ant> <Evil-Brotten> :P 14:14 <ant> <Evil-Brotten> ow, ok 14:14 <ant> <cervantes> Evil-Brotten: you can talk in #i2p-chat if you like while the meeting is ongoing 14:14 <jrandom> Tracker: we've got a lot to do before handling 1k-wide torrents 14:14 <ant> <Evil-Brotten> i was just trying to install your program, but i am having some problems 14:14 <ant> <Evil-Brotten> cool, i will ask there 14:15 <jrandom> wikked smeghead 14:15 <Tracker> jrandom: I hope so, non-anonymus bt won't survive much longer... 14:15 <frosk> nonsense 14:15 <jrandom> "but exeem is anonymous!@#" </snark> 14:15 <Tracker> jrandom: But that's a different story 14:15 <ant> <MikeW> what? 14:15 <ant> <MikeW> who said exeem is anonymous? 14:16 <jrandom> mikew: just the occational fanboy 14:16 <jrandom> Tracker: after 0.5 we're going to have a lot of work to do getting performance where we need it to be 14:16 * DrWoo notes that 'people' are fucking morons (sometimes) 14:16 <Tracker> jrandom: Yeah, installing spy-/adware isn't really what I would do ;) 14:16 <jrandom> heh 14:17 <smeghead> i happen to like people 14:17 <smeghead> they're good on toast 14:17 <jrandom> *chomp* 14:17 <smeghead> some need a little more butter than others 14:18 <jrandom> ok, i think thats 'bout it for 2) sam.net (unless anyone has something else to add?) 14:18 <jrandom> if not, moving on to 3) gcj progress 14:19 <ant> <dm> sam.net?? 14:19 <ant> <dm> is it working?/ 14:19 <jrandom> i've read in my backlog that smeghead has been making some good headway - wanna give us an update on how its going? 14:19 <smeghead> yes 14:20 <ant> <dm> cooooooool 14:20 <smeghead> i modified a few classes so the router compiles with gcj 3.4.3 14:20 <smeghead> i will submit the patch after the meeting 14:20 <smeghead> after that i and anyone who would like to help can get to work on making it run 14:21 <jrandom> nice 14:21 * frosk decorates smeghead with the Employee of the Week medal for sam.net _and_ gcj work 14:21 <jrandom> aye, v.cool 14:21 <smeghead> :) 14:22 <Tracker> frosk: better forum user of the week ;) 14:22 <frosk> i haven't read the forum this week, sorry :) 14:22 <cervantes> duck's glory has not yet expired ;-) 14:23 * jrandom is very much looking forward to seeing i2p gcj compatible 14:24 <jrandom> (and there's still that bounty on it, so people should get in touch with smeghead and get involved ;) 14:24 <smeghead> yes it would expand i2p's portability significantly 14:24 <cervantes> maybe we'll be able to squeeze something that resembles performance from the router :P 14:24 <ant> <dm> my 32-week run as hardest I2P worker ends at last... 14:25 <jrandom> i dont expect gcj to actually improve performance or reduce the memory footprint, but it'll work on OSes that sun doesn't release JVMs for and kaffe is b0rked on 14:25 <jrandom> (but if i'm wrong, cool!) 14:25 <frosk> anything that can make i2p run better without proprietary software is Good 14:26 <jrandom> agreed. supporting both kaffe and gcj would be a Good Thing 14:27 <jrandom> ok, anything else on 3) gcj progress, or shall we move on? 14:27 <smeghead> installation would be easier too 14:27 <Teal`c> has gcj worked for anything besides 'hello world' examples ? 14:27 <Ragnarok> someone built eclipse with it 14:27 <smeghead> Teal`c: yes, i've used it for .exe's under mingw before in fact 14:27 <smeghead> yes, eclipse was running under gcj with red hat not to long ago 14:28 <jrandom> having the option of distributing gcj'ed executables, plain .jar installers, and bundled .jar+jvm will definitely be Good 14:29 <jrandom> ok, moving on to 4) udp 14:30 <jrandom> there was a recent post to the forum that i just wanted to draw people's attention to, asking (and answering) why udp is important 14:30 <Tracker> Yuck 14:30 <jrandom> (see http://forum.i2p.net/viewtopic.php?t=280 and comment if you have any suggestions/questions/concenrs) 14:31 <jrandom> yuck Tracker? 14:32 <jrandom> anyway, both mule and detonate are making some headway on the udp side. detonate/mule: y'all have any updates to share? 14:32 <Tracker> UPD is evil here, while it works well within the country borders it really get's ugly when trying to use it on destinations outside our countrys. 14:32 <jrandom> hmm 14:32 <Tracker> Just my experience from 5 years online gaming... 14:33 <jrandom> we'll certainly need to take into account the congestion and mtu issues as they go out on the net 14:33 <Tracker> Somehow the two big backbones here don't like to router UPD very well and if only with very low priority. 14:34 <Tracker> Meaning pings between 5 and 20 seconds. 14:34 <jrandom> i'd be pretty suprised if there was an isp that didn't allow UDP at all (since we all use DNS) 14:34 <Tracker> And high packet loss 14:34 <jrandom> congestion control is certainly important 14:35 <Tracker> Why do you think I'm running my own caching dns with a very big cache for years ;) 14:35 <jrandom> heh 14:35 <jrandom> well, we will have the fallback of tcp for people who cannot use udp for some reason 14:36 <jrandom> but udp will be overwhelmingly preferred 14:36 <Tracker> That's nice. 14:36 <jrandom> (meaning i hope there will only be perhaps 10 people using tcp out of 1m+ nodes ;) 14:37 <jrandom> but, again, that forum link explains why we need to do what we're doing, though if anyone can find a better way, i'm all ears 14:37 <Tracker> I guess I will be one of them. 14:37 <jrandom> perhaps. 14:38 <jrandom> we'll see as 0.6 is deployed whether thats the case, or whether we'll be able to work around the issues your isp has 14:38 <jrandom> ok, anything else on udp? or shall we move on to 5) ??? 14:39 <jrandom> consider us moved 14:39 <jrandom> 5) ?? 14:39 <jrandom> anyone have anything else to bring up? 14:40 <Teal`c> is the pizza here yet ? 14:40 <Jhor> anybody know where i should look to find/debug problems in bittorrent? 14:41 <jrandom> Jhor: in i2p-bt, a good place to start would likely be adding in some logging to tell you what BT messages are sent/received, so we know where its blocking/timing out/etc 14:41 <jrandom> (assuming you mean i2p-bt and not azneti2p?) 14:42 <Jhor> yeah, i2p-bt. what are the different spew levels? 14:42 <jrandom> no idea, all i know is --spew 1 14:42 <Jhor> Ok, I'll try that 14:43 * Jhor prepares for a crash course in python 14:43 <jrandom> :) 14:44 <jrandom> ok, anybody else have something to discuss? 14:44 * cervantes wheels out the Strand Gong 14:44 <jrandom> we're around the 60m mark, so a pretty good rate 14:44 <Teal`c> when is udp due for general consumption ? 14:44 <jrandom> Teal`c: april 14:44 <jrandom> thats 0.6, we're still working on 0.5 14:45 <Teal`c> nice work. 14:46 <jrandom> progress, ever onwards 14:46 * jrandom winds up 14:46 * jrandom *baf*s the gong, closing the meeting