On Sat, 2 Aug 2014, Yaron Minsky wrote:
> I think that increasing the number of gossip peers only improves
> things. The probability of collisions I think does not systematically
> go up when you increase the number of peers, and it reduces the chance
> that you've chosen an unusually busy set of
On 8/3/2014 3:06 AM, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote:
> I'm thinking on structure of graph of key servers for a long time.
> IMHO it is too scale free and not designed knowingly enough.
If you haven't read this paper, start with it.
* Watts, Duncan J.; Strogatz, Steven H. (June 1998). "Collective
dynam
Also, why does having more peers take more resources? The rough
algorithm (IIRC) is: pick a random host from your list of peers;
reconcile; wait a fixed period of time and try again. The set of
hosts from which you pick a peer seems like it adds no cost.
y
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Robert
On 08/04/2014 09:19 AM, Yaron Minsky wrote:
> Also, why does having more peers take more resources? The rough
> algorithm (IIRC) is: pick a random host from your list of peers;
> reconcile; wait a fixed period of time and try again. The set of
> hosts from which you pick a peer seems like it adds
> Also, why does having more peers take more resources? The rough
> algorithm (IIRC) is: pick a random host from your list of peers;
> reconcile; wait a fixed period of time and try again. The set of
> hosts from which you pick a peer seems like it adds no cost.
Look the opposite direction.
More
