On Monday 01 July 2002 20:21, you wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 11:35:34AM +0200, Roman Bednarek wrote: > <> > > > Maybe such big requests are a serious problem to freenet? I want to > > add request size logging to my node. Could you advice me where to put the > > log to catch all incoming and outgoing requests? > > I have implemented a fix for this, along the lines that were discussed > many weeks ago (and optional representation of the NodeReference that > does not include the identity, which can be read from the session > layer). However, when I commit this it means a protocol upgrade that > breaks backwards compatibility (*), so I'm holding back a few hours > pending objections. Do it, I don't object.
> > > I have read in one post that there is a limit of 60 requests per > > minute. It is almost 100 times slower than node could handle in my > > estimation. I hope that this is true. But I am somehat dubious. It's not sexy to talk about limitatations but they must be factored into the design of the system or it won't work. I have always suspected that the bounding factor limiting how many requests a node can usefully handle will be the number healthy node refs it can maintain. At least for modern systems with cable-modem class connectivity. > > I am also planning to increase GJs hard outgoing limit by 5 times with > this patch. Sounds fine with me. 60 was a guesstimate made a long time ago by observing network conditions. >I have to say that I agree with Pascal regarding the value > of this limit - rejecting a request actually increases the total amount > of work the network has to do compared to serving it (the previous node > has to go back and route again, sending the request to it's next peer > with the same HTL as you would have given it.) I don't see how nodes > could possibly become better citizens by working below capacity. > > What nodes need to do to be good citizens, is to monitor the amount of > requests they generate locally compared to the amount they are able to > serve - but as was noted the current code doesn't do that all. > Agreed, but how do you figure out "the amount they are able to serve "? --gj > > > (*) Before people start whining about bad design, I would like to note > that it is in fact possible to implement this in a backwards compatible > way, by not using the terse NodeReference format when talking to nodes > whose current reference indicates they use the old protocol - but I > would REALLY not like to get into that quagmire before 1.0... > > <> -- Freesite (0.4) freenet:SSK@npfV5XQijFkF6sXZvuO0o~kG4wEPAgM/homepage// _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
