On Tuesday 02 July 2002 04:04, Oskar wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 11:26:59PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: > > On Monday 01 July 2002 20:21, you wrote: > ... > > > > 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 don't know what you mean. The neighbors are also likely to be "modern > systems with cable-modem class connectivity".
I meant that I think the number of requests my node can usefully handle is bounded by the number of requests my node's nodefefs can handle, not bandwidth, cpu or RAM. I don't understand how it can be useful for my node to answer inbound requests by generating more outbound requests than it could handle (on average). How could a network of such nodes ever not be overloaded? > > <> > > > >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. > > You didn't respond to this. When a node serves a request and forwards > it, it does a little bit of work for the network, decreasing the total > amount of work the rest of the network has to do by one hop. When a node > rejects a request it does no work at all, and throws all the work back > to the rest of the network. Isn't the htl decremented as a result of the QR? >Rejecting requests is node egoism, and is > thus only justified when a node needs to be egoistic because it is > overloaded. If a node suspects that the rest of the network is > overloaded the best thing it can do is serve as many requests as > possible! > > > > 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 "? > > Ideally because the network is load balanced and the node gets exactly > the amount of work it can serve... Could you make your best guess as to how the load balancing should work? I remember you wanted to do some simulations, but even a decent guess might be better than what we have now -- i.e. nothing. The infrastructure for gathering the global load stats is there, but we never actually turned the selective reference resetting. --gj -- Freesite (0.4) freenet:SSK@npfV5XQijFkF6sXZvuO0o~kG4wEPAgM/homepage// _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
