-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 21 Jun 2006, at 09:11, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 09:27:43PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Still thinking about this - but is there any place here for the >> "minimum request interval" mechanism we used in 0.5? > > This supercedes the minimum request interval mechanism, by passing > tokens rather than trying to determine rates. It's better - it's more > precise, it reacts more accurately as well as faster. It more > accurately > simulates the underlying metaphor or incompressible fluid flow in a > network of pipes. One of the points of the MRI mechanism was to reallocate (what are now being called) tokens from nodes where they weren't being used to nodes where they were. In the proposed scheme, what happens if one neighbor is sending a lot of requests, but none of the other neighbors are sending any, so the one "greedy" neighbor's needs can be satisfied? Ian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEmgQxQtgxRWSmsqwRAgJDAJ9Al8XWNn+xg2D3LG0SWHtusPwdEgCaA1AE UGFwOkLS2ag8pgsANGoZqHE= =1Smw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
