On July 23, 2003 09:08 pm, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:02:49PM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > On July 22, 2003 02:38 pm, Toad wrote: > > > > This is basicily what the current code tries to do. Quite probably I > > > > should make nodes that do not have connection have a very low CP. > > > > Note about the only thing CP is used for the NG code to to drop nodes > > > > (and give the sort order for the display servlet). > > > > > > Drop nodes? We don't drop nodes based on CP, do we? > > > > Yes the current NG code commits this sin. Suggestions on what will work > > better would be nice. First though is to use the time it takes nodes to > > retrieve keys to drop from the RT - syspect this would tend to overload > > nodes though. > > Well, we need to scrap all code related to CP - it is pure alchemy and is > neatly obsoleted by NGR.
Ian, looks like I am wrong. Someone dug into the code and found its the node LRUed by last use time that is dropped. This normally is one with a very low CP... This means we are only using CP to sort the list which is harmless. Ed _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
