On Jan 24, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> Well, in this case it was a reliable indication that one of our peers >> maybe being overloaded (or defunct); and supposing that this node >> appears consistently bad to all it's peers, then as a whole the >> network does route around this node, but at one-extra-peer radius (it >> does so because my node is rejecting requests in his favor). > > Definition of median: line up all the numbers in order and pick the > middle > one. One very high or very low value therefore has no or marginal > influence > on a median, if the others are unchanged. > > So if one of your peers is severely overloaded, that should have no > effect > whatsoever on your pInstantReject.
Unless, I suppose, there was an instant when it was the only not- backed-off peer; then it would average in real quick. More plausible since (1) these slow peers show up as NOT backed off, and (2) being in this situation makes your peers backoff from you (is a request reject more likely then?). -- Robert Hailey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080124/082c62c0/attachment.html>
