On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:46:42PM -0800, Martin Stone Davis wrote: > Toad wrote: > > >On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 07:34:32PM +0000, Toad wrote: > > > >>Okay, so the answer to the original question: > >>* Implement selective accept/unobtanium. When moderately overloaded, > >> accept only those queries with the best NGRouting estimates. QR the > >> rest. Rather than accepting the first ones to come in. This is based > >> on probabilistic accept and NGR. > >>* Abolish termination of requests on receipt of DataNotFound. Rewrite > >> estimators to take this into account, and make any obvious corrections > >> necessary in other areas. DNF now means rejected the query > >> for a reason related to the key. Send DNF when we selectively reject > >> above, as well as the usual ways. > >> This has the potential to cause a load explosion; this will be managed > >> partly by the above. > >>* Implement the other half of ian's load balancing idea. However, we > >> want to figure out a way to do this without sacrificing unobtanium. > >> One possibility: queue requests to send briefly, as we would queue > >> inbound requests, and then send the best ones (to comply with the > >> node's rate limit), and make the rest move on to their next best > >> choice. > > > > > >Assuming that routing estimation is virtually free (and this is > >supported by empirical evidence on iakin's ubernode), we may not even > >need the last item. If our intention is to accept the fact that freenet > >will always be overloaded as a given, we can simply have the nodes > >choose which queries to accept on the basis of their routing estimates. > >If they only accept 2%, who cares, it's probably the right 2%, and when > >the node retries on another node, it will be accepted when it reaches > >the right node. It would not be an EXPONENTIAL load explosion - most > >nodes we route to (if our routing is broken) would reject outright, > >rather than routing to various nodes and then failing. > > I'm certain that I don't understand what you are saying here. But, > given Toast's idea for implementing unobtanium, would you still say that > we may not need Ian's backoff scheme?
I don't know. I'm not sure how Ian's backoff scheme would cooperate with unobtanium - I suspect it might thwart it rather than complement it. > > -Martin -- 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
