On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 08:49:34AM -0500, Ken Corson wrote: > (no heavy mathspeak in this one) > > It seems that there are two differing expectations about how > the datastore can specialize. Perhaps a visual representation > of keyspace can help what I'm saying - > > > 1) . . . . . ..-=*###*==--... . . . . > > > > 2) . . -*#*- . . .. -+- . .. .. -++- . . . > > > > In example 1, the keys cluster about a single point. It seems > most people expect this behavior. > > In example 2, there are multiple points of "clustering." The > existence of a clustering point reinforces that cluster, but > multiple "points" exist. > > I don't know which of these is the proper interpretation, but > I'm leaning towards #2.
It depends on the routing algorithm. NGRouting probably favours #1, classic routing favours #2. > > And again, it is worth restating, that if the local datastore > is only able to directly respond to some small percent of the > total queries received, the datastore's specialization is far > less significant than routing specialization. The estimators > for the peers in the routing table are used to forward(route) > those queries that cannot be answered directly with the > contents of the datastore. > > Let's think in 3 dimensions briefly: the astronomical universe > represents the total keyspace. As expected, the universe is > mostly empty. The keys (stars) are 'magnetic.' Case one has > only one galaxy, but case two has many galaxies. > > Does this help anyone ? Which is the proper analogy > for Freenet's expectation of datastore specialization ? -- 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
