Hi Lemon, >it will ultimateley be determined by ones > view of the world. and science is a view...
This argument leads to sophism, where every idea (think intelligent design) is as worthy and good as every other. That's false :-). At least, in the reality-based community. >for example...i believe in the > passive approach...and my protocols reflect that...and if you know small > world theory; this could be called the 'weak' connection....which if you > know anything about human and social behavior, is the one where information > travels most efficiently. I guess none of us know anything about human and social behavior; we all thought information travels fastest down the shortest fiber link with the smallest number of hops. Frankly, a lot of small world hype relies on hand-wavy allusions to social behavior. Well, computers aren't people; they can be very efficient when misapplied analogies do not get in the way. Bob. > > > > > Daniel Brookshier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll chime in. In the P2P world, O(log^2 N) may not be efficient, but > it may be the cheapest in terms of resources. For instance, a walker > may take a while to find a resource in a small world topology, but it > expends little effort at each node. Conversely, to attain fewer hops, > that also means a larger resource at each node to index and process > the index queries. There are also ways to use the hubs in such > networks to greatly improve efficiency. > > The small world is also not necessarily the complete network or only > topology available to an application. The number of hops in a search > is not the same as a the number of hops that may be applied to > communications. Thus even when one part is inefficient, the other may > be ideal. > > On Mar 20, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > On 20 Mar 2006, at 12:11, Bob Harris wrote: > >> 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. > > > > It is rather courageous (or perhaps simply foolish) of you to > > dismiss an entire avenue of study so cavalierly, time will tell > > whether you are right. > > > >> Who wants O(log^2 N) performance? > > > > It has already been pointed out that actual route lengths are far > > more important than the order of the route lengths in practical > > networks. It has also been pointed out that O(log^2 N) performance > > presumes a fixed routing table size, where in most if not all > > practical deployments, routing table sizes are increased with the > > size of the network. > > > >> Did I really see simulations talking about 40+ hops? > > > > You might have, but I can't recall any such simulations mentioned > > in this thread. > > > > 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 > > > > You don't get no juice unless you squeeze > Lemon Obrien, the Third. > _______________________________________________ > 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
