Hi everyone, Having lurked on this list for some time, I discern an interesting trend. There is a lot of hype around small world networks. They have a catchy name. And they are easy to code up. But they have terrible performance. I suspect most people who work on small worlds are either theoreticians who don't care about performance, or innumerate people caught up in the hype. Who wants O(log^2 N) performance? Did I really see simulations talking about 40+ hops? Are these people serious ? Do they not understand the difference between 5 hops and 25? 6 and 36?
Those of you who are puzzled by phase transitions ought to read Karp's paper "The Transitive Closure of a Random Digraph," Random Structures and Algorithms, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1990). He shows that you need log N edges per node on average to keep a random graph connected. While at it, one might as well read a recent P2P paper on O(log N), O(d N ^ 1/d) or even O(1) systems. Why would anyone want to reinvent a crappier wheel ? Bob. On 3/20/06, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think for the purposes of this conversation, around 70% will be > more than sufficient (although without further thought I am not sure > exactly how scalability in a small world network is affected by > having variable numbers of links among nodes). > > Ian. > > On 20 Mar 2006, at 10:33, Greg Bildson wrote: > > > Define "most". If you mean more than 70% (not sure of the exact > > percentage), I would have to disagree. > > > > Thanks > > -greg > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:p2p-hackers- > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Behalf Of Daniel Stutzbach > >> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:29 PM > >> To: Peer-to-peer development. > >> Subject: Re: Dijjer and Freenet (RE: [p2p-hackers] clustering) > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:20:02AM -0800, Serguei Osokine wrote: > >>> 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... :-) > >> > >> Most users upgrade their software within 2 months [1], so replacing > >> all the client code actually isn't that hard. I'm assuming the > >> network is robust enough to keep working if a small percentage of > >> clients have the old code. > >> > >> [1] = based on measurements of LimeWire Ultrapeer users. Amir > >> H. Rasti, Daniel Stutzbach, Reza Rejaie, "On the Long-term Evolution > >> of the Two-Tier Gnutella Overlay", to appear at the Global Internet > >> Symposium 2006. > >> > >> -- > >> Daniel Stutzbach Computer Science Ph.D > >> Student > >> http://www.barsoom.org/~agthorr University of > >> Oregon > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
