On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:12:33PM +0000, Ian Clarke spake thusly: > > If you expect only a .08% psuccess > > How do you know that 92% of requests aren't for data that isn't in the > network.
You are implying that frost is the cause of this? If that's the case I think the frost project has to die because it is killing the rest of the network. But I'm not sure that it is. It would be nice if there were a psuccess measurement which did not include KSK's. With an 8% psuccess rate I would have to insert a splitfile with around 1000% redundancy to be able to get it on the first try. Is that what you propose that we do? Or do we just click retry a whole lot of times and cross our fingers? I haven't been able to receive TFE for a couple days and my node has 20G of data in the store and a DS-3 and has been up for months. Others can retrieve it so it was definitely inserted today. I recall someone on the channel once reported a 25% psuccess and you were impressed. Doesn't it seem odd to you that you would buy that as a possible realistic number and now you ask us to consider that perhaps 92% of requests are for data that isn't in the network? Freenet is still has a long way to go to get away from alchemy. It's as if there is no scientific process. The above is a good example. Regarding the major routing bugs that were found: Wouldn't some basic sanity checking have caught those? I suggested breaking out some of the methods in the routing table and providing some inputs and checking that sane outputs were produced and he seemed to scoff. Reskill made a good point also: The 692 network DID perform better than the unstable network when the unstable network had just as few nodes. We found this out when unstable forked into its own network. Looks like the theory that any build would work well with so few nodes was incorrect too. > For the millionth time, just because there is no obvious specialization > doesn't mean that something is wrong! The specialization might not be > obvious for any number of reasons other than that Freenet's routing > isn't doing what it should. You have been saying this since before the two major bugs (and probably a number of smaller ones) were found that ensured that routing would never work. Had everyone believed it then perhaps the bugs would not have been found. Why should we believe it now? If the routing is that "nonobvious" then it is too complicated to actually work. I still don't understand how freenet will ever scale without specialization. The need for specialization was made pretty clear in your original papers and the simulations. I have a challenge for you: Name one other computer program that works yet nobody can explain how. And you intend to put Freenet on this list? I just don't buy the "nonobvious" routing theory. -- Tracy Reed http://copilotconsulting.com
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
