On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 04:42:43PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: > On Thursday 18 October 2001 15:24, you wrote: < > > > The fundamental problem with the current CP approach is that it doesn't > take time into account in the way it models contact reliability. No amount > of tuning will fix this. > > A noderef that was responding to 100% of requests until 20 minutes ago but has > failed to respond to the last 10 requests is qualitatively different from a > noderef which which has failed all 10 requests that were made to it since > the node was started a week ago. The former is much more likely to respond > than the latter.
The only reason that would have happened was if the former node got picked in the RoutingTable as many times in 20 minutes as the latter did in 7 days. And since it continues to get picked 504 times as often, it will obviously be routed to more often even though the CP is the same. <> > > Well, I'm not entirely sure how the ThreadPool works, but I thought that > > the pool number was the number of threads that were always kept alive > > (except I guess "minPool" would be a better name for that I guess), the > > maxThreads number was the maximum that could ever be alive, and I don't > > see the need to enqueue any jobs at all (there is no sense in > > leaving jobs hanging we don't have threads for, all new Threads except > > connections come from the Ticker). > > > > It seems logical to me that we keep an active pool of about half the > > allowable threads - why would we only keep 5? > Back in the .3 days people expressed dismay that all of those "unused" > threads were being kept around. That sounds silly, a couple of idle threads aren't a resource issue on modern computers. <> -- Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
