On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:41:17PM +0000, Roger Hayter wrote: > As I understand it, the present routing method tries to predict the node > to contact which will give it the quickest response overall to its > request. This is (I will take as given) the individual node's best > strategy. However, inherent in this strategy, is a high likelihood of > any given request being QRed (because a quick QR is better than a very > slow response from a node which might ultimately be somewhat more likely > to reach the needed key than the first choice node, but which is known > to be less likely to QR quickly). But, a large number of QRs on the > network adds to network load, and, arguably, may greatly reduce the > chances of a fast node ever specialising, as the requests coming to it > are likely to be from all areas, "hoping" for a quick QR.
Yes. The quickest response overall, INCLUDING RETRIES IF WE ARE REJECTED. > > Perhaps, an altruistic node would route to avoid QRs for the benefit of > the network, even if it meant it was likely to take it much longer to > get the data it wants, by trying to predict where it would be found > without QRs. > > The paradox (of course) would be apparent if a network of altruistic > nodes in fact achieved better routing, and much less pointless traffic > (I know they are not *necessarily* the same thing), and worked better. > > > Have I got a point here, or am I just arguing for bringing the original > routing algorithm back - is there a possible variant of NGRouting that > looks for quickest route but with time to QR weighted at X1000 seconds > or some such? No, QR is already heavily weighted. > -- > Roger Hayter -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
