On May 4, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Evan Daniel wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Toseland
<t...@amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
1. Release the 20 nodes barrier (206 votes)
As I have mentioned IMHO this is a straightforward plea for more
performance.
I'll reiterate a point I've made before.
While this represents a simple plea for performance, I don't think
it's an irrational one -- that is, I think the overall network
performance is hampered by having all nodes have the same number of
connections.
Because all connections use similar amounts of bandwidth, the network
speed is limited by the slower nodes. This is true regardless of the
absolute number of connections; raising the maximum for fast nodes
should have a very similar effect to lowering it for slow nodes. What
matters is that slow nodes have fewer connections than fast nodes.
I'm not saying that it's wrong, but the 20 node barrier is a bit
arbitrary... we find ourselves talking about performance, bandwidth,
and a constant.
I could see a bandwidth-limited node totally choking with only a few
connections, and certainly even an 'uber-node'/unlimited bandwidth
would reach a point where adding extra peers would be of no benefit.
Perhaps there are even just a minority of nodes on the network that
are actually making it slow (seeing that a request may travel through
~20 nodes). Is it possible that some nodes have too many peers for
there bandwidth setting? would it make a difference?
--
Robert Hailey
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
