On Friday 06 July 2001 05:15, OS wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 11:56:16AM -0700, Mr.Bad wrote:
> > >>>>> "GJ" == Gianni Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > GJ> c) The current implementation
> > GJ> Freenet.message.Request.sentToNextBest gets
> > GJ> ConnectFailedExceptions and tries ever more distant (in
> > GJ> keyspace) refs, WITHOUT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ADDRESS OF THE
> > GJ> NODEREFS. refs which die with connection exceptions are
> > GJ> removed from the DataStore. The problem is that often, every
> > GJ> single ref that refers to the same physical address will be
> > GJ> removed quite quickly, permanently removing the corresponding
> > GJ> node from future routing decisions.
> >
> > So, I don't think that's true. I believe this (bletcherous) code
> > tries to find wider nodes that have different addresses:
>
> What is wrong with it?
>
> > ---8<---
> >
> > } while (kmm.lastAttempt != null
> > && (addr == null
> >
> > || (addr.equals(kmm.origRec)
> > ||
> > || kmm.usedAddresses.contains(addr))));
> >
> > ---8<---
>
> <>
Looks ok to me.
My point wasn't that there's a problem with the per request behavior, but
that there should be some "memory" of transport failures that spans requests.
The current (0.3.9.x) system has positive feedback that drives successful
nodes to saturation. It seems ridiculous if we *know* that this is the case
to implement the routing in a way that drops connections to saturated nodes
too easily.
If 0.4 is just around the corner, then I guess its not worth messing with.
However, if not, why try to fix it. My patch is relatively small and I
think, low risk.
-- gj
--
Web page inside Freenet:
freenet:MSK@SSK@enI8YFo3gj8UVh-Au0HpKMftf6QQAgE/homepage//
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
