On Monday 27 October 2003 07:45 pm, Toad wrote: > Ok, so the proposal: > > Keep the current failure table. It should probably be made very large. > > Create a large secondary failure table. Keys in this table will still be > routed, but are not counted for statistical purposes, nor do they affect > estimators, making the psuccess more accurate, but meaning a large fraction > of traffic is simply not counted in the psuccess at all, and we will be > making "disposable" requests, which don't affect the estimators. > > > Hrrm. This is very interesting. Anyone see an obvious reason not to do > it?
It would use a lot of RAM, and if we implemented TUKs we would never have to request keys that did not exist in the first place. TUKs have other advantages too. IE: Frost would only need to make a very small fraction of the requests it does now. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
