From:
Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Sat, 26 Oct 2002 22:32:34 +0100
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 05:28:04PM -0400, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
From:
Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Sat, 26 Oct 2002 14:21:25 +0100
If a request comes in with an HTL below some dynamic threshold
based on the average HTLs of the other queries in the queue, then
it is considered desperate and is handled.
No, we didn't do exactly that, preferring low HTLs is silly it
encourages bad behaviour.
When you have a minute (I realize that you are busy these days) could
you elabourate on how encouraging low HTL requests in the network
is silly. I would believe that the opposite is true and am curious what
reasons you have to think the way you do. We already encourage lower
HTLs by using the maxHTL setting in the configuration.
Because we do not want nodes to use low HTL requests to lots of nodes
rather than high HTL requests to one (or a few) nodes.
Fish is right about inserts but I wasn't talking about inserts here.
In my mind, inserts should never be rejected. Otherwise you will
never know how many nodes your insert made it to. I don't know
how the current code handles it.
OK ... I can see how this scheme would make 5x5htl requests
faster to do then 1x25htl request. If you truly want to favour long
requests over short ones then reverse the HTL priority. You can
just as easily favour high incoming HTLs in the connection queue
this way as low ones.
Mike
_______________________________________________
devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
