We could try it on the basis that simpler is, all else being equal, better.
Ian. On 10 Aug 2006, at 16:19, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 12:08:11AM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >> Specifically: >> >> Metric M, lower is better. M could be proportion of requests >> rejected, >> or it could be time for a successful request. >> >> Distance d = routing distance from target to peer.location. >> >> If peer.M < median.M: >> return d >> Else >> return d * median.M / peer.M > > d * peer.M / median.M > (so it gets bigger) :) > > I still wonder whether we should try option 0 though (no load > balancing). > -- > Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060810/1c0ff345/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060810/1c0ff345/attachment.pgp>
