On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:49:17PM -0500, Juiceman wrote: > If we had connection multiplexing in place, I think it would be a lot easier > to fix NGR, as each set of Nodes would have only one connection between > them -- In effect this would act as a limiting form of load balancing...
How would it balance load? It might make things worse by allowing a virtually unlimited number of trailer transfers to occur simultaneously... > > Other benefits would come from the required packetizing of trailers, which > should help with transfers failing, timing out and having to redo the whole > request chain again and again. I have outlined loads of reasons why muxing would be useful. However, I am not sure that muxing would improve our sentData ratios significantly. And it would probably take a month to code and debug. > > See previous email http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.devel/8264 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ian Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Discussion of development issues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:18 AM > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Errors in formulas > > > > > We need to think about why NGR isn't benefiting from a similar > > self-reenforcing effect. I don't think it is as simple as "its > > estimates aren't good enough", any more than it is valid to say that > > classic routing's routing decisions are perfect. > > > > Ian. > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -- 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
