On Wednesday 19 March 2008 21:32, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Backoff does not effectively route around nodes which frequently produce > transfer failures, because in almost all cases we will have more DNFs (and > RNFs etc) than we do transfer failures. > > How can we deal with this? A separate backoff tracker for transfer failures, > which only cares about whether transfers succeed or fail?
After discussing this with Ian, I will implement a separate backoff tracker for transfers, which is only affected by success/failure of transfers. Any alternative suggestions are of course welcome. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080319/1b372395/attachment.pgp>
