On Wednesday 09 May 2007 19:13, you wrote: > Well, what does the data say? Does it support or refute any of these > theories?
Well, there is a spike at 0.2 on my peers and my intercepted swap locations. This has been true for a while; before the network reset it was at 0.0. Having said that it's not that big a spike any more. But the intercepted swap data only goes out to 6 hops. That leaves probe requests. Which continue to be perverse, but I think we have some chance of investigating with the new recorded data: INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/05/08 20:21:43 | LOCATION 0: 1.3539134879558823E-5 - estimated nodes: 73859.96290721533 (62 hops) INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/05/08 20:27:31 | LOCATION 1: 2.361622498392446E-5 - estimated nodes: 84687.54008574181 (73 hops) INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/05/08 20:32:56 | LOCATION 2: 0.004470353498917001 - estimated nodes: 671.0878682696541 (40 hops) ... INFO | jvm 1 | 2007/05/09 20:36:29 | LOCATION 247: 0.9916986858272543 - estimated nodes: 250.07595910356943 (42 hops) Clearly something is wrong here. It might very well be routing that is wrong. I'll have a look at the detailed probe logs. We might have to introduce even more topology monitoring mechanisms. :( > > Ian. > > On 5/9/07, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > 1. We have added code to accurately capture the long-range network > > topology by monitoring swap requests (and adding a per node uid for each > > location mentioned), and through probe requests (a request routed to a > > location, which returns info such as how close it got to the location, > > how many hops it took etc; we have now added per-hop info on the peers of > > the nodes it passed through). Obviously neither mechanism is perfect: > > swapping only gives us 6 hops, and probe requests rely on working > > routing. > > > > What should we do with this data? We have a few theories: > > - There may be a well-connected core of developer nodes etc, and then > > most of the rest of the network is newbies connected exclusively to > > newbies, no long links. Probably because of the current means for newbies > > to obtain noderefs. - Selective pressure for node locations to cluster > > together: Core nodes get very close together locations (around 0.25 at > > the moment), and newbies get the rest. When a newbie node arrives, if its > > location is close to the core it moves to the core, possibly displacing > > not-so-close locations. If it's not close to the core it stays in newbie > > space. And newbie locations are dumped when the newbies leave. Result: > > Newbies occupy most of the location space, but are fairly sparsely > > distributed; established nodes occupy a very small area, much denser than > > the newbies' area. Before the last network reset this was very obvious in > > the locations from the swap data, it's not so obvious any more, so maybe > > it isn't a real effect.. > > > > The basic question here is does #freenet-refs cause serious problems in > > the network topology, and are there other major problems such as location > > clustering as described above. > > > > How do we use the collected data to verify these theories, or get other > > data on the network? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20070509/92db0214/attachment.pgp>
