* zothar at freenetproject.org <zothar at freenetproject.org> [2006-06-18
19:02:38]:
> Author: zothar
> Date: 2006-06-18 19:02:33 +0000 (Sun, 18 Jun 2006)
> New Revision: 9304
>
> Modified:
> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestSender.java
> Log:
> Mitigate "backoff hell" a bit by not routing to a peer if it's the only one
> not backed off and we have a few backed off peers.
>
That's what we call alchemy, isn't it ? :)
Well, I do see the point of not sending our requests when we have only
one online peer (even if there is plausible deniability) but why the
"backoff throwsold" ? to allow nodes with less than 4 peers to be usable
?
I'm not sure I agree to the concept, maybe I'm missing the point though,
may you explain ? :)
NextGen$
> Modified: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestSender.java
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestSender.java 2006-06-18 17:35:22 UTC
> (rev 9303)
> +++ trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestSender.java 2006-06-18 19:02:33 UTC
> (rev 9304)
> @@ -113,6 +113,13 @@
> return;
> }
>
> + // Route starvation due to almost all backed off?
> +
> if(node.getPeerNodeStatusSize(Node.PEER_NODE_STATUS_CONNECTED) == 1 &&
> node.getPeerNodeStatusSize(Node.PEER_NODE_STATUS_ROUTING_BACKED_OFF) > 3) {
> + // Don't send everything to one node, that may have just
> come out of backoff, hopefully preventing backoff hell (the one emerging from
> backoff gets pounded back into backoff)
> + finish(ROUTE_NOT_FOUND, null);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> // Route it
> PeerNode next;
> double nextValue;
>
> _______________________________________________
> cvs mailing list
> cvs at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvs
>
-------------- 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/cvs/attachments/20060618/f289304b/attachment.pgp>
