On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 07:31:20AM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > BTW. Given that my nodes 'busy' profile, in terms of network traffic, varies > by the second I strongly > suggest we try start backoff at a smaller number say 0.5 seconds so the first > backoff interval would be > up to 1 second (as opposed to 10 seconds). I predict this is will lead to a > smoother use of the > available bandwidth.
Not a good idea IMHO. Backoffs are supposed to be for a long period. They are not a way to send each node however many requests they can handle; they are a way to backoff completely from a node while it is temporarily overloaded. Whereas a node which is offline for a few seconds, then online for a few seconds, then offline for a few seconds and so on is BAD; we should back off it completely for as long as it takes for it to be able to handle the full load of the network. -- 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/20060609/942c6274/attachment.pgp>
