You’re right I have miss read it as 2 separate counters. Now I see its a timeperiod with 2 separate triggering events.
People already have at home 1Gbps links and many business connections are this and more without contention ratios of the home connection. So it can be an issue today let alone when the network goes live and is large enough for large data store.
In my opinion we need the discussions now on how to do this and not overly affect users.[quote=“ustulation, post:3, topic:583”]
I don’t understand what you mean,
The idea was that we have 2 different types of usage. One without accounts and they can only access public data storage (obviously) And the other is use with accounts which also have private storage and ability to mutate/store data.
ALSO I thought that a computer accessing the network would have multiple relay nodes to help anon the usage patterns and also to prevent a bad actor from knowing too much about a computer accessing the network. I guess this isn’t finalised and we work with the one relay node
In effect we treat the 2 types of usage differently since the computer accessing the network without an account can only do a GET spamming and we can be a little more restrictive on their performance if above reasonable limits. Also we can get more restrictive if the activity continues. The network can also change these values to account for the network load. If heavily loaded then reduce the limits and if not then the limits can be less restrictive This only works for the current session of that computer not logged into an account.
For an computer logged into an account then we can apply the limits to the particular account, this also allows the situation were the computer is using 2 accounts, say downloading the star data file on one and doing other stuff on the other. For an account we can keep some history. A spammer will likely be using a set of accounts (for DDOS) and at different times (different attacks) so the network could flag these accounts as spammy and be more restrictive on them. This forces the attacker to spend more to get new accounts and reduce the Spammer’s effect.
No distinction between the data, but a distinction between the types of usage. No account means treating the computer/session separate to previous times. With an account we can treat the account over “time” (passing of network events) or in other words have a history for the account. This history should fade out if spammy activity was long ago (in network events terms)
Needs to be discussed / worked out. I wanted to see what you though of the concept of widening the scope a little.
Also when I wrote about the network setting the limits another thought I had was could we apply some limits to usage depending on network load. This way heavy users cannot swamp out small users when network load gets heavy. (load based on groups close by). Instead of everyone getting 40% of unloaded performance the light users get 75% and heavy users get say 30% because of the limits.
This would be achieved by limits on maximum throughput (rate). And if done right could also be the limits on spammy usage since they would be arguably the users wanting the most throughput.