It is well established that there is a problem with 0.5 routing. What relevance does this have to anything?
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:30:01AM +0000, Gordan Bobic wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20051201/e1e05e44/attachment.pgp>
