On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 02:34:48AM -0500, Ken Corson wrote: > Toad wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:29:45PM -0500, Zlatin Balevsky wrote: > >>Toad wrote: > >>>One radical solution: > >>>Remove the code to reject queries when the bandwidth limit is exceeded! > >> > >>which returns us in the state 5010-5018 where the node has accepted > >>umpteen transfers, each going at snail speed. Making that prevalent > >>accross the network will be catastrophic. > > > >Not with NGRouting IMNSHO. > > Well, certainly LESS with NGR. But we still should consider setting a > limit on the number of simultaneous transfers (trailers) per network > link / pair of peers. If both nodes agree on the number, then the > requestor will recognize the conditions under which it should not > query for more data, and when it is okay to resume Q's again...
Please stop saying this and read the COPIOUS discussion there has been on it FIRST. > > >>Another possibility is to go even further back in 5007-5010 where the > >>node would still accept everything but wouldn't round-robin to the > >>senders which effectively meant the queries were served in a fifo queue. > > Yes, we not only want to smooth the acceptance rate of incoming requests > for the local node, we want to do it fairly for each requestor as well > (smoothing per route). Round-robin is the perfect term here. > > Ken -- 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
