On May 14, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Because we were both on the same LAN, it did not connect, until I
told him to
set it to allow local addresses on that peer. There should be a
checkbox when
adding a noderef, defaulting to on, "Friend may be on the same local
network
as me" or something. (#3098)
I think that it should be possible to automatically detect this.
Specifically, if we detect that our peer has the same "external
address" as us, try and connect locally. Is that a reliable indicator?
Once connected to my node, it repeatedly RNFed on the top block of
TUFI.
Performance with one peer is expected to be poor, but it is worse
than IMHO
it could be. Some sort of fair sharing scheme ought to allow a
darknet peer
that isn't doing much to have a few requests accepted while we are
rejecting
tons of requests from other darknet peers and opennet peers. (#3101)
I second that, but I'm not sure as to the best implementation.
On the surface this appears to be the same issue as balancing local/
remote requests. i.e. if your node is busy doing everyone else's work,
your requests should take clear advantage when you finally get around
to clicking a link.
I think this conflicts with the current throttling mechanism; piling
on requests till one or both nodes say 'enough', and if we reserve
some space we will not hit our bandwidth goal. Or that requests are
actually "competing" like collisions on a busy ethernet channel rather
than having an order.
One thing that I was playing around with earlier was re-factoring
PacketThrottle to be viewed from the queue-side. Rather than
"sendThrottledPacket" blocking till "a good time" to enqueue a message
based on the throttle, that all the packets would be serially
available interleaved (e.g. PacketThrottle.getBulkPackets(n); returns
the next 'n' packets).
--
Robert Hailey
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
