On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:34:50AM +0200, Some Guy wrote: > --- Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 02:12:55PM +0200, Some Guy wrote: > > > Was NGR tested as extensively as freenet's original routing? If not then why? > > > > > > You could have reused some of the same code from the first freenet paper. Even > > > now this > > might > > > still be a good idea. Sorry if you guys have done this and I haven't heard, but > > > I never was > > all > > > that convinced by NGR. > > > > Nope. Ian was dazzled by its beauty. But the main problem was that it's > > virtually impossible to simulate NGRouting. > > Hmmmm, dazzled by its beauty eh. > > I don't see why testing it would be any harder than testing the old routing as was > done in the > freenet paper(freenet.pdf 1999). For the paper the simulated 1000 nodes. They > didn't have move > actual data around. The NG 10 points seems like less state per node to simulate > than the old > system.
It's not 10 points. It's 16 IIRC. But that's per estimator and we have a bunch of estimators and a bunch of decaying averages per node, which are then combined to get an estimate for a given key, which we use to route. But the big issue is that it's virtually impossible to simulate it because it involves timings and is intentionally highly sensitive to network conditions. > > Boy it sounds like I'm volunteering aren't I! I'm not as dazzled by its beauty > though. Still if > nobody has time to do this, maybe I should. Is there any interest in writing a > paper about NG as > for the original routing? Does anyone else think this is a good idea??? There was one. You have read it? On the project web site. -- 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
