On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 05:59:13PM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > On September 16, 2003 12:30 pm, Toad wrote: > > > What would you prefer we do? The only way we can stop more data > > transfers being started is by rejecting queries, which is exactly what > > we are doing above! However, your bandwidth is not maxed out - so it > > would be better if the data transfers did not occupy threads. Which is > > being worked on. > > What I would do is track query reject probability (QRp) for each node and > use it in the NG routing time estimate, using something like: > > Estimate = Estimate / (1-Min(QRp,0.98))
RTFS. Or at least read the debate we had about all this. OF COURSE we track the QueryReject probability. It's a fairly important term in the formula. > > This would tend to reduce the load on nodes rejecting lots of queries avoiding > the problem when too much bandwidth sending query rejects. > > I do not think we need to save the QRp. They are apt to change fast and we will > quickly > determine the busy nodes. We _may_ have to insert code to decay QRps towards > zero slowly so the our node eventually retries nodes that were busy. > > Just an Idea, > Ed > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
