Ok, the new stable build seems to be working quite well, are other people experiencing the same thing?
We need to take stock of the situation with NGR. I think one problem has been a willingness to dream up solutions, and implement them, before actually understanding what the problem is.
I would like to propose that now that the time-pressure is off, we try to be more cautious - we need to form theories about what the problem is, figure out how to test these theories, and if they prove true, *then* we implement a solution.
Well, okay, but how does that relate to the plan I outlined (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.devel/8191)?
I understand why you would want more proof that we should drop HTL in favor of time-to-live (Toad's idea, which I support). To do so *right now* would be a big change, since we still have many details to be filled in (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.devel/8184). Therefore we should only do it if we're confident that it will cure a major ill.
However, I think we can implement the other ideas right away. We know (Toad has proven) that we have more queries than we can actually deal with, so your back-off scheme should be implemented. We know (I have proven) that the current estimate() formula is incorrect, so we should fix it to match its original purpose. And as for Unobtanium routing, I can't prove to you that it would cure a major ill, but it would not be hard to implement, it couldn't hurt, and it just might help.
>
One thing that is important is simply to figure out how accurate NGR's estimates actually are, and whether their estimates are statistically significant.
Also, understanding which parts of the NGR estimate calculation have the most bearing on the routing decision.
Thoughts?
Ian.
-Martin
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
