On 2010/10/29 (Oct), at 6:22 AM, GitHub wrote: > From: toad > > This will not be merged, period.
It needs a little more work anyway :) > We do not make significant changes to routing without detailed > simulations. The Least Recently Used policy used for opennet has > been extensively simulated and while it is not proven, there is also > a very strong mathematical basis for it. There is every reason to > think that it should perform well, in other words, and automatically > establish a small world topology. Plus, it trades off performance > against location in a way which is simple and avoids any need for > extra layers of performance evaluation separate to optimising > locations. You might be right if LRU was the only factor. However, I think that the announcement algorithm accounts for 95% of peer selection. In my experience, nodes announce... get peers at the given location... and then are forevermore content with the announce-gathered peers. LRU would only have the effect that you state if we routinely dropped the lowest peer (in such a way that they could not just reconnect). > Finally, I don't believe routing is the problem limiting performance > on the current network. The distribution of incoming requests is > usually very specialised, for example. Incoming requests are specialized, that's true! But this indicates that *those requests that get to us* are specialized. The overall CHK success rate is a better measure of network health IMO. It's too bad that there is not a way to experiment on the whole network without negatively effecting it; e.g. it would be *very* bad if a routing change prevented update-over-freenet. I guess we could run two parallell networks, but would require reduplicating much code. -- Robert Hailey
