-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Apr 2006, at 14:27, Matthew Toseland wrote:
The question posed in "Subject: [freenet-dev] Is a failed insert worth
more than a failed request?" still stands.
I suggest that:
- Not all failed requests are equal.
- *The* distinguishing factor is the number of RejectedOverload's
forwarded to the originator.
- For example, an insert is more likely to produce several
RejectedOverload's than a request, but they are both counted equally
as a failure.
- We should therefore count a single RejectedOverload as a failure -
even if the request is automatically retried by a later node and
succeeds. We can then count that success as a success. This is
analogous to packet retransmission; if the retransmit is lost as
well
as the original packet, it's reasonable to reduce the send rate
again.
However we differ in that the eventual successful resend is
counted as
a success... maybe we shouldn't?
- We should still take the round trip time as the overall time for the
request (assuming it eventually succeeds rather than timing out).
Is this reasonable?
Well, I think you are focussing on a sub-problem, when it is the meta-
issue that is currently being debated: Is our TCP-inspired approach
appropriate for request-level load limiting?
Ian.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFEPX9TQtgxRWSmsqwRAneoAJ9pWOncYyXldyPrAHkmbFB7Zni+CQCfTyyr
3iI0YSRTjo8G5ESZwEzmMGI=
=be1l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
