Ian Clarke wrote: > On 30/11/05, Gordan Bobic <gordan at bobich.net> wrote: > >>Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >>>Umm, please read the presentation on 0.7. Specializations are simply >>>fixed numbers in 0.7. The problem with probabilistic caching according >>>to specialization is that we need to deal with both very small networks >>>and very large networks. How do we sort this out? >> >>It's quite simple - on smaller networks, the specialisation of the node >>will be wider. You use a mean and standard deviation of the current >>store distribution. If the standard deviation is large, you make it more >>likely to cache things further away. > > > You are proposing a fix to a problem before we have even determined > whether a problem exists. I am not currently aware of any evidence > that simple LRU provides inadequate specialization, or that we need to > enforce specialization in this way. > > In other words: If its not broken, don't fix it (words every software > engineer should live by).
Having just put two nodes up, one with unlimited bandwidth (well, 100Mb/s) one with less, and seeing both of them sit at the maximum bandwidth set or maximum CPU usage, whichever runs out first, tells me that there likely is a problem. It seems obvious to me that without specialisation there can be no routing other than random/flooding - and I am not seeing particularly pronounced specialisation. The only reason it _seems_ to work is because popular content gets caches on most nodes. Gordan
