I had always thought (incorrectly I guess) that that disparity was due
to the load balancing being based off of a "relative load" and not
strictly the displayed queries/hour (call it "absolute load" if you
want). By relative load I mean the (resource use)/(resource limit) while
absolute load is just the plain resource use. Differently powered
machines will have different resource limits (CPU, memory, bandwidth
factors) leading to different strains on different machines even if they
are experiencing the same QPH. Does it make sense to use relative load
rather then absolute load? Is that sort of what is happening with the
bandwidth/thread limits throttling the load numbers on some machines on
the Freenet? Or is it *all* due to the fscking transients as Matthew
mentions?
/Mike
From:
Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:26:18 -0800
Looking at http://127.0.0.1:8888/servlet/nodeinfo/networking/loadstats I
am surprised at the range of node loads being reported, ranging from 124
queries/hour to a whopping 26412 queries/hour! Overall, there is a
standard deviation of 6519 (don't ask how i calculated that, but it
didn't help my RSI), and an average of 4367 (which, incedentally, is
different to the global mean as calculated by my node of 3219..?)
This huge standard deviation would suggest that the load-balancing
really isn't working too well - any ideas?
Ian.
_______________________________________________
devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
