On Monday, March 20, 2006 Ian Clarke wrote:
> It means that as these networks grow, we will need to increase the
> number of connections per node, just as Chord and other DHTs do. The
> difference is that we aren't (currently) doing this automatically
> because we don't want to have to calculate the size of the network
> on the fly, so we just chose a high enough number that will suffice
> for the time being.
You mean you did not expect to grow Dijjer and Freenet beyond
512K nodes before you'd have to replace all the client code? With
today's P2P network sizes it might be a good idea to have the code
that would be ready to scale into high millions at least - you never
know when you might need it... :-)
One more thing - Oskar was running his simulations without all
the practical optimizations that Dijjer uses (caching and all), and
without trying to simulate the content with a different popularity
(using just random point pairs), if I'm not mistaken. This difference
might also affect the number of nodes where the meltdown happens. And
since there's no good way to simulate either, I'd be extra cautious
when choosing the number of links for the real deployment. The network
with the real algorithms and access patterns might fail sooner than
the simulation, so you might want to be extra conservative when
choosing the number of links.
By the way - Oskar, did you grow the network to the next higher
size starting with the previous stable graph, or just created it from
scratch? I thought that the former method might be more stable and
give you the higher failure point - and it would more accurately
reflect the real life situation, too, because the real deployments
tend to grow from the stable base and not just be started from zero
nodes. Do you think this might affect your simulation?
Best wishes -
S.Osokine.
20 Mar 2006.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Ian Clarke
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 9:57 AM
To: Peer-to-peer development.
Subject: Re: Dijjer and Freenet (RE: [p2p-hackers] clustering)
On 20 Mar 2006, at 09:32, Serguei Osokine wrote:
> So what you're saying is that once Dijjer approaches one million
> nodes, it will have a catastrophic meltdown? And this is the way it is
> supposed to be? What about Freenet? Will it blow up before reaching
> one million nodes as well? And if yes, can you do something to prevent
> it?
It means that as these networks grow, we will need to increase the
number of connections per node, just as Chord and other DHTs do. The
difference is that we aren't (currently) doing this automatically
because we don't want to have to calculate the size of the network on
the fly, so we just chose a high enough number that will suffice for
the time being.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers@zgp.org
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers@zgp.org
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
