On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 07:32:52PM +0100, Jano wrote: > toad wrote: > > > Interesting. I'm not entirely sure what these graphs tell us though, as > > explained earlier ... > > > > It is very surprising that slow nodes don't drag down the whole network; > > Actually throughput seems lower and wilder; around 30k instead of 40k. More > runs could clarify this.
MRogers said there was a lot of variation between runs... more runs are therefore a good thing in any case. > > > throttling without backoff seems competitive with, if not better than, > > throttling with backoff, even on a heterogenous network. > > > > Ideas? Explanations? > > I don't know what throttling and backoff are doing, so I'm unable to help > here. Throttling = request senders slow down when they see overload messages or timeouts. Derived from TCP. Backoff = node doesn't route to another node for a while after a timeout or overload message. This is doubled the following time, until we reach a limit; it is reset if a request completes without overload or timeout. Derived from ethernet. The theory goes that if there are many slow nodes on the network, throttling would pull the whole network down to match their speed. This is why we have backoff; to prevent this from happening. -------------- 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/20061201/f6ed9cdd/attachment.pgp>
