-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 12 Apr 2006, at 14:27, Matthew Toseland wrote: > The question posed in "Subject: [freenet-dev] Is a failed insert worth > more than a failed request?" still stands. > > I suggest that: > - Not all failed requests are equal. > - *The* distinguishing factor is the number of RejectedOverload's > forwarded to the originator. > - For example, an insert is more likely to produce several > RejectedOverload's than a request, but they are both counted equally > as a failure. > - We should therefore count a single RejectedOverload as a failure - > even if the request is automatically retried by a later node and > succeeds. We can then count that success as a success. This is > analogous to packet retransmission; if the retransmit is lost as > well > as the original packet, it's reasonable to reduce the send rate > again. > However we differ in that the eventual successful resend is > counted as > a success... maybe we shouldn't? > - We should still take the round trip time as the overall time for the > request (assuming it eventually succeeds rather than timing out). > > Is this reasonable? Well, I think you are focussing on a sub-problem, when it is the meta- issue that is currently being debated: Is our TCP-inspired approach appropriate for request-level load limiting? Ian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEPX9TQtgxRWSmsqwRAneoAJ9pWOncYyXldyPrAHkmbFB7Zni+CQCfTyyr 3iI0YSRTjo8G5ESZwEzmMGI= =be1l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
