> The rationale was that if all the network is so busy that all the "close" > noderefs are busy, there's no point in further increasing traffic by > continuing to route.
Yeah, this is a-little suspicious, and I am not sure I buy this rationale. If they are busy, then routing around them will serve to provide alternative sources for the data (once it is found and cached along the reverse search path), which will help to alleviate the problem, without causing unnescessary RNFs. The number of RNFs I see (particularly when using a tool like FMB) suggests that this is causing more harm than good either way. A RNF is a serious failure of a Freenet node to serve its user, and the fact that the node might be RNFing unnescessarily adds insult to injury. I believe this harm greatly outweighs the debatable benefit you outline. > 2) The overload prefiltering code discriminates against requests which are > far from the node's estimated specialization when the node is overloaded, > making them more likely to be QR rejected. Not to nitpick - but I have always been somewhat uncomfortable about assuming a single area of specialization for a node. In many simulations I have seen, nodes will frequently specialize in two or more areas. Ian. -- Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ Personal Homepage http://locut.us/
msg03466/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
