On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 09:24:00PM -0600, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > 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.
I don't see why TUKs, or even passive requests, would solve the problem entirely. If a large fraction of our requests won't succeed no matter what, that is going to have a significant effect on routing estimator accuracy and on our ability to gauge whether routing is working (routingSuccessRatio) - this proposal gives a possible means to mitigate that. And I rather think it is possible to implement it using relatively little RAM, and to substantially reduce the RAM usage of other subsystems. And finally, RAM is cheap... -- 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
