* Matthew Toseland <t...@amphibian.dyndns.org> [2009-02-25 17:59:32]:
> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 10:00:22 Florent Daigniere wrote:
> > Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 03 February 2009 11:36:01 nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> > >> Author: nextgens
> > >> Date: 2009-02-03 11:36:00 +0000 (Tue, 03 Feb 2009)
> > >> New Revision: 25484
> > >>
> > >> Modified:
> > >> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/NodePinger.java
> > >> Log:
> > >> Improve NodePinger:
> > >>
> > >> -take care of synchronization
> > >> -requeue before we do anything so that we are closer to a 200ms period
> > >> -logging optimizations
> > >>
> > >> @@ -24,35 +37,34 @@
> > >> run();
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> - final Node node;
> > >> -
> > >> public void run() {
> > >> - //freenet.support.OSThread.RealOSThread.logPID(this);
> > >> - try {
> > >> - recalculateMean(node.peers.connectedPeers);
> > >> - } finally {
> > >> - node.ps.queueTimedJob(this, 200);
> > >> - }
> > >> + // Requeue *before* so that it's accurate in any case
> > >> + node.ps.queueTimedJob(this, 200);
> > >
> > > Is this really a good idea? If there is heavy load, you could end up with
> > > hundreds of these jobs running in parallel?
> > >
> >
> > In that case we are screwed anyway; Introduce a "fast-fail" using a
> > volatile boolean if you think it's worth it.
>
> What is the purpose of the 200ms period?
Good question; that's your code ;)
I think we use the meanPingTime of connected peers in the load-balancing
algorithm... It does make sense to have "consistent" values.
I guess that 200ms is just an arbitrarily chosen value.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
