> > There seems to be the missleading concept that inserts have to be slower > > than > > downloads. The argument is: it needs to go over more hops therefore it is > > slower. I have discussed this issue, and I think its obvious that this is > > not > > true... > >
> > You are only considering the local cost. Because an insert visits 20 > nodes instead of 7, it will hit 3 times as many nodes. This does not > just affect latency! It affects throughput, for the simple reason that > an insert causes 3 times as much load on the network. Therefore we can > only send 1/3rd as many inserts as requests. but I am sure we agree that each block is most likely requested more than only three times? I am sure the global share of bandwith is dominated with downloads and not with inserts, So deven if our inserts use more bandwith than a download once. The global balance is probably not influenced by inserts. I see we cant prioritize inserts too much, because malicous flooding would be a problem then. But what about a prioritzing upto 1/3 of the whole bandwith? Well First of all we have to see if the Bugfix is a solution. If I get 1/3 of my bandwith for my inserts which would be 10K then, would be a major step onward, and after that we could move to other things ;)
