> I am afraid I did not understand this at all. Please elaborate. I just want to understand which benefits we get when implement what we're talking about. If major benefit is reduced latency of ring messages, then the assignment 'ARC ID' in accordance with latency value is quite enough. But if there are any hidden problems because of the large number of reconnection (like I described in first message in this discussion), then better to find a way to determine real physical location.
> And, yes, proper built ring should reduce latency of ring messages IMO. Okey, then i think Vyacheslav's idea (using latency values) is quite enough when we can't determine real physical location. 2016-12-26 13:03 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>: > >Then, as I understand it, a lot of reconnection in the ring cannot create > even temporary but major problems for performance. And in general this > optimization will change practically nothing. Or am I missing some things? > > I am afraid I did not understand this at all. Please elaborate. > > I did not suggest any reconnections or ring rebuild. All I suggest is to > control over ring building process with arcs. And, yes, proper built ring > should reduce latency of ring messages IMO. > > --Yakov >
