On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
In the present network, it probably would; but in theory I think that
the patch is correct (or some variant thereto).
Nothing would ever be dropped from the network, because when it's
considered
for dropping, it would get reinserted to 20 other nodes!
I am not recommending that this patch be applied... yet. Every point
that you have raised against it is perfectly valid. In the present
network, because the nodes drift locations soo much, this patch (even
if perfectly tuned; maybe re-insert with HTL=1) would cause data
blocks to "chase" the nodes around the network. Resulting in massive
network traffic increases, as you said. *IF* it helped access of data,
it would only be due to the renewed data being passed through the node
caches (which would probably be overflowed with old insert data).
My suggestion at present is to:
(1) stabalize node locations enough that data stores come alive, or
(2) bias/soft-anchor towards what is in the datastore (or perhaps what
has most-recently been put in the data store?).
I agree that either of which would require simulations. #1 would be a
statistical solution (network drift < datastore utility-threshold) and
may be presently attainable with tuning, whereas #2 would be more
pragmatic (and tend to specialize nodes further). #1 may already be
the case if the network size was large enough, but an algorithmically
correct freenet should support any size network (as math scales very
well).
As an example of the general problem (although it seems to have helped
get a routable network); even the theory of a node randomizing it's
location totally obsoletes it's datastore.
--
Robert Hailey
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
