Matthew Toseland wrote: > We already do this. Ah, cool. :-)
> I presume that the latter tactic would be best, since we don't know the > node's > location: send a swap request with our location set to m, and all our peers > at (m + 0.5) modulo 1.0. I see what you mean. Perhaps a node should only attempt to reduce its own stress (in Robert's terms), rather than the product of its stress and the other node's stress? Cheers, Michael
