Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Allow (or Block) Temporarily : takes ages to be operational

Posted by Anonymous User 
Anonymous User
Allow (or Block) Temporarily : takes ages to be operational
September 22, 2009 10:50AM
When you select an URL to be Allowed (or Blocked) for 15 min or one hour , it takes a long time to rebuild the Cache (when you have a large one) , so making this important feature not practical .

As a suggestion , that temporary action for the URL could be stored in a "temporary cache" (or something like) , that would have priority over the actual Cache on the search , thus avoiding it to be rebuild .

That "temporary cache" would not need to be saved to disk .

(I know this is system design , but as i sad , it is useless the way it is now) .
Re: Allow (or Block) Temporarily : takes ages to be operational
September 22, 2009 02:50PM
avatar
what do you consider "a long time"? My system is currently (at this moment) blocking 756,176,993 IPs and the cache barely takes 10-12 seconds to build. The machine i'm on isn't the fastest, but it's not slow either, so i'm wondering what your building time is




This is my Signature!
Anonymous User
Re: Allow (or Block) Temporarily : takes ages to be operational
September 22, 2009 05:06PM
Hello,

As ss18 said, it is dependant on the size of your block file('s) that you use and also on your system.

I run a series of block files on different systems for different reasons. On my main system (which is my 2nd most powerful system), I run 3 files, (2 of them [permallow & permblock] and the main I build), my main is 2,681,116,379 blocked IPs. and it only takes 3 secs to generate the cache, any time I make changes.
This always has to do with mainly your systems capabilities and also with the size of the file set you choose.
Re: Allow (or Block) Temporarily : takes ages to be operational
September 22, 2009 06:26PM
avatar
Yup, all good points. From my own perspective, I actually find it obnoxious when I need to wait as PeerBlock rebuilds its list-cache over and over and over.  I'm not a patient man!  Issue 20 tracks our plans to look into optimizing the list-cache generation; on top of that I'd like to generate the list-cache as a background activity and "jumpswitch" the driver over to the new list once it's regenerated, and also would like to implement something like what JRF suggested.

I actually don't think the temporary allow/block lists should be forcing a list-cache regeneration though, currently.  Permanent changes do in fact cause the list-cache to be regenerated - and this is where my annoyance comes into play - but temporary ones should not be.  If you are seeing the "Generating List Cache" window popup after temporarily allowing/blocking an IP-address, that is a bug!!

Are you sure you're seeing this behavior for temporary allow/blocks?

Thanks for the feedback,

        ---  Mark  ---




Lead developer of PeerBlock
Anonymous User
Re: Allow (or Block) Temporarily : takes ages to be operational
September 22, 2009 07:18PM
Thanks Mark for responding , and you are right , I do *not* see the popup for Cache-List-rebuild when changes are temporary , I was confused by the "shadow" of the last popup (the one were the change was requested) that keeps over the PB window , during the time it takes to implement the change (ftr , I think this is OK for my not so great system , as this process seems to use much CPU) .

Thanks also for ss18 and LarryLaser for the replies .

I agree with you both (and could not be different) : the building time of the Cache list is dependent on the lists size , the machine power , and the CPU load .

The point on my post was so *not* related to these factors , as they are always going to exist in different combinations , for each user environment (e.g. see the resolution times reported in the replies above) .

I emphasize this has never been reported as a PB bug , as it will happen for any mechanism like this .

However I would like the development team could appreciate my suggestion , in the very optimization line Mark referred to (thanks for his attention) .

I used something similar on programs dealing with large volumes , and envisage that for this PB case , as it is just about temporary changes , the time spent to process another short list (only in memory , and not needed to be recorded) would be very low , not degrading the search process .

And (this is the suggestion core) the time to have the (Allow/Block) changes operational would then be almost instantaneous , much less dependent of the CPU (power and load) , and independent of the list size.
Re: Allow (or Block) Temporarily : takes ages to be operational
September 24, 2009 04:23AM
avatar
Yep, don't worry, we'll definitely look into this as part of Issue #20 once we get there. Make sure you "star" that issue if you want to make sure it gets attention sooner rather than later!

        ---  Mark  ---




Lead developer of PeerBlock
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login