On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:37:35PM +0000, thong wrote:
> Martin Stone Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Ian Clarke wrote:
> >> I still don't have my head around this fully yet, but I think the core 
> >> flaw in your proposal is that it assumes that, for a given key, the 
> >> pSuccess values of repeated requests to the same node are independent, 
> >> but they are not.  After the first failure, pSuccess for that node drops 
> >> to 0.
> >
> >Hand-wavy explanation: When trying to ask "how long will it take this 
> >one node to give us a 1 unit of data?" we don't have to be concerned 
> >about how our opinions about pSuccess will change in the future.  All 
> >that matters is the true value itself.  Since we don't know the true 
> >value, the best we can do is use our current opinion of the true value.
> 
> I think the basic problem is as follows.  In Martin's model, you
> repeatedly query the same node again and again.  Sometimes it decides
> to give you data (with probability pSuccess), sometimes it decides not
> to (with probability pFailure).  The rate at which you can issue
> queries depends on how long the node takes to get back to you
> (tSuccess or tFailure, respectively).  Martin then picks the node that
> gives the greatest throughput.
> 
> There are two difficulties here.  First, we are only interested in
> getting the data once, not lots of times.  So we really want to
> minimize the time to the first success, not maximize the number of
> successes over time.
> 
> Second, once the node returns failure, that means it can't find the
> data.  There's no point in asking again, because it will again say no.
> Or will it?  Maybe we *should* admit the possibility of asking the
> same node twice - downstream network conditions might change.  After
> all, that's exactly what you do on your own node when requesting data.
> If you don't find it, you try again.

DataNotFound cache. A.k.a. failtable.
> 
> theo
> 
> 
> -- 
> Theodore Hong         Dept. of Computing, Imperial College London
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   180 Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ
> PGP key: http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~twh1/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Reply via email to